Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 179 of 179

Thread: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

  1. #171
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,353

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Really? Someone thousands of years ago was keeping track of sea level changes in coastal locales along the coast of the (then-future) United States? Because if the answer to that question is "no," I'm not sure how you can make that claim. The data tracks actual observed sea level rise since record-keeping began.
    Actually, sea levels have been tracked for thousands of years. They have only been relatively stable for the last ~8,000 years or so. Currently, global sea levels are increasing by only 1.7mm on average annually. With some areas of the planet dropping significantly, while other areas rise significantly.

    Sea Level Rise.jpg

    To put it into perspective, during the 3,700 years after the Younger Dryas ended and the start of the Holocene Maximum sea levels rose by 60 meters, or an average of 16mm per year. Almost 10 times faster than today for 3,700 years. If you go back even further, some 18,000 years ago when sea levels were 120 meters below current levels and you end up with the North Sea being mostly grass lands.

    The sea levels today are as stable as they have been for the last 20,000 years.

  2. #172
    Educator
    TomFitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,181

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Sounds like a poorly written and biased Fox News Article whose purpose is to make boomers feel better about destroying the planet as they die off.
    The “reporter” was working of the Koch talking points!

    The Competative Industry Institute is a Koch brothers front.

  3. #173
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Actually, sea levels have been tracked for thousands of years.
    No they have not. For that claim to be true, that'd mean that someone had been tracking them for thousands of years. That's obviously false. The poster to whom I responded suggested something to the effect of extending the data (from something I posted, which was based on actually coastline measurements since 1970) back thousands of years. That'd only be possible if there had been people taking sticks and sticking them in the beach, and/or taking satellite photos and comparing them over time, for thousands of years. Clearly, not possible.

    Are there forensic proxies? Sure. But that's not the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    They have only been relatively stable for the last ~8,000 years or so.
    I doubt that's true either, but I'd agree that a neighboring claim is true, namely that the levels over the last 8000 years are much more stable than they were during the ending of the last ice age, as glaciers melted. Which rather seems to form an argument for ensuring that glaciers don't melt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Currently, global sea levels are increasing by only 1.7mm on average annually. With some areas of the planet dropping significantly, while other areas rise significantly.
    No, incorrect. The 1.7 mm/year figure is from pre-1990 measurements. Since then, the average has risen to about 3.3 mm/year. What that means is that, on average, from 1990 to now, sea levels have risen about 2.5 inches. As you correctly note, some areas see significantly more rise, and others less. And while 2.5 inches doesn't sound like much, in low-lying areas, this apparently small rise can result in serious, sometimes catastrophic, and sometimes permanent, flooding, making the area uninhabitable, or only inhabitable with serious difficulty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    To put it into perspective, during the 3,700 years after the Younger Dryas ended and the start of the Holocene Maximum sea levels rose by 60 meters, or an average of 16mm per year. Almost 10 times faster than today for 3,700 years. If you go back even further, some 18,000 years ago when sea levels were 120 meters below current levels and you end up with the North Sea being mostly grass lands.
    All probably true. But so what? Are we living in the Younger Dryas? If the total human population were still somewhere around 12-15 million individuals mostly living a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, sea level rise would be a non-issue. But we are 7 billion, going on 8 billion, with a great many of us living in areas that will flood catastrophically (as if that hasn't already happened in places) if the seas rise much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    The sea levels today are as stable as they have been for the last 20,000 years.
    Which does not mean they are stable enough to avoid massive population disruptions--that is, lots of people dying or losing their homes.

  4. #174
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,353

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    No they have not. For that claim to be true, that'd mean that someone had been tracking them for thousands of years.
    Incorrect. What it means is that we are able to reconstruct what the sea level was and where the continents were located at any given time from ice-core and ocean sea-floor samples. Just like we can reconstruct the atmospheric CO2 content and mean surface temperatures going back hundreds of millions of years.

    Sources:
    Rapid coupling between ice volume and polar temperature over the past 150,000 years - Nature 491, 744-747, November 2012 (free preprint [PDF])
    Holocene Crustal motions in Great Britain: evidence from continuous GPS, absolute gravity and Holocene sea level data crustal movements and sea‐level changes in Great Britain - Journal of Quaternary Science, Volume 4, January 1989

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    I doubt that's true either, but I'd agree that a neighboring claim is true, namely that the levels over the last 8000 years are much more stable than they were during the ending of the last ice age, as glaciers melted. Which rather seems to form an argument for ensuring that glaciers don't melt.

    No, incorrect. The 1.7 mm/year figure is from pre-1990 measurements. Since then, the average has risen to about 3.3 mm/year. What that means is that, on average, from 1990 to now, sea levels have risen about 2.5 inches.
    Those continental glaciers have already melted. What ice remains is insignificant. The overwhelming majority of the ice melt is picked up by evaporation.

    Areas experiencing little-to-no change in relative sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr
    Source: NOAA Sea Level Trends

    It should also be noted that those areas where the glaciers continue to recede, like Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Finland, and Siberia, those areas are rebounding. Meaning the sea levels are dropping considerably. The sea levels around Skagway, Alaska, for example is dropping by 17.81mm/year. That information also comes from NOAA.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    As you correctly note, some areas see significantly more rise, and others less. And while 2.5 inches doesn't sound like much, in low-lying areas, this apparently small rise can result in serious, sometimes catastrophic, and sometimes permanent, flooding, making the area uninhabitable, or only inhabitable with serious difficulty.
    Climate changes, and so does sea levels. We have to learn to adapt to an ever changing planet, instead of pretending that we don't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    All probably true. But so what? Are we living in the Younger Dryas? If the total human population were still somewhere around 12-15 million individuals mostly living a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, sea level rise would be a non-issue. But we are 7 billion, going on 8 billion, with a great many of us living in areas that will flood catastrophically (as if that hasn't already happened in places) if the seas rise much more.
    The planet isn't going to change in order to accommodate us, which means we have to learn to change with the planet. There also wouldn't be 7.6 billion people on the planet if not for global warming. Only through global warming are we able to feed that many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Which does not mean they are stable enough to avoid massive population disruptions--that is, lots of people dying or losing their homes.
    An average sea level increase of 1.7mm/year is not going to cause massive population disruption. It would take 588 years for sea levels to rise just one meter, on average. Skagway, AK, will have risen 10.5 meters above its current elevation in that time. Unfortunately, Eugene Island, LA will have sunk 5.7 meters in that 588 years and since it is currently less than 3 meters maximum elevation, it will most likely be at least 2 meters under water in 588 years.
    Last edited by Glitch; 09-27-19 at 04:08 AM.

  5. #175
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Incorrect. What it means is that we are able to reconstruct what the sea level was
    No. We are able to do that kind of reconstruction reasonably well (probably), but that's not what "it" (the piece of language in question) means. To "extend the data" means to take that very same data and stretch it out. Reconstructing based on forensic proxies is to add different data. Not the same thing.

    To put it another way: you could post links like that all day, and they'd be irrelevant to what I am saying here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Those continental glaciers have already melted. What ice remains is insignificant. The overwhelming majority of the ice melt is picked up by evaporation.
    Insignificant to whom? I doubt very seriously the people living in areas that have already flooded, or will be flooded as they melt, would call those glaciers insignificant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    It should also be noted that those areas where the glaciers continue to recede, like Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Finland, and Siberia, those areas are rebounding. Meaning the sea levels are dropping considerably. The sea levels around Skagway, Alaska, for example is dropping by 17.81mm/year. That information also comes from NOAA.
    Uh...so what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Climate changes, and so does sea levels. We have to learn to adapt to an ever changing planet, instead of pretending that we don't exist.
    You don't say! You sound exactly like the scientists making climate predictions here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    The planet isn't going to change in order to accommodate us, which means we have to learn to change with the planet. There also wouldn't be 7.6 billion people on the planet if not for global warming. Only through global warming are we able to feed that many people.
    Sure. "Global warming" in this case is a bit like acetamenophen. Some is good medicine. Too much will kill you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    An average sea level increase of 1.7mm/year is not going to cause massive population disruption. It would take 588 years for sea levels to rise just one meter, on average. Skagway, AK, will have risen 10.5 meters above its current elevation in that time. Unfortunately, Eugene Island, LA will have sunk 5.7 meters in that 588 years and since it is currently less than 3 meters maximum elevation, it will most likely be at least 2 meters under water in 588 years.
    I have no idea what the relevance of any of that is, either--first since, as I pointed out last post, the actual average figure is nearly twice what you're using (it's roughly 3.3 mm/year on average rather than 1.7 mm/year on average):

    Sea Level Rise | Smithsonian Ocean

    But also since the article PoS posted and lampooned as making predictions that didn't become reality doesn't say anything about Skagway, Alaska.

  6. #176
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,353

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    No. We are able to do that kind of reconstruction reasonably well (probably), but that's not what "it" (the piece of language in question) means. To "extend the data" means to take that very same data and stretch it out. Reconstructing based on forensic proxies is to add different data. Not the same thing.
    You are what the anti-American left would describe as a "denier." Someone who denies something they can't understand it. The highest form of ignorance - willful.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    You don't say! You sound exactly like the scientists making climate predictions here.
    I do say, and what the insane left have been tying to sell us is that if we just eliminate our "carbon footprint" and pretend that we don't exist. Then global warming will magically disappear and the climate will become instantly static for all eternity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    I have no idea what the relevance of any of that is, either--first since, as I pointed out last post, the actual average figure is nearly twice what you're using (it's roughly 3.3 mm/year on average rather than 1.7 mm/year on average):

    Sea Level Rise | Smithsonian Ocean

    But also since the article PoS posted and lampooned as making predictions that didn't become reality doesn't say anything about Skagway, Alaska.
    It is relevant because it is NOAA that tracks sea level trends, not the Smithsonian that publishes leftist propaganda from Climate Central. Your sources are completely bogus, which explains why you believe such lies. Unfortunately, you have also demonstrated that you lack any desire to learn the truth from peer-reviewed sources. Which makes you hopelessly indoctrinated, and a complete waste of my time.

  7. #177
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    You are what the anti-American left would describe as a "denier." Someone who denies something they can't understand it. The highest form of ignorance - willful.
    The danger inherent in telling someone they don't understand something is that it is perhaps you, yourself, who doesn't understand something. That kind of turnabout is often actually the case when you employ sloppy thinking (like, for example, conflating one kind of data with another, as you and others here have). Such is also likely the case when you just have your facts wrong, as you do (see below).

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    I do say, and what the insane left have been tying to sell us is that if we just eliminate our "carbon footprint" and pretend that we don't exist. Then global warming will magically disappear and the climate will become instantly static for all eternity.
    I don't know who amounts to the "crazy left," but the article PoS posted said nothing of the sort. In fact, it said that if we hadn't reversed climate change trends by the year 2000, certain undesirable consequences would come about by somewhere between 2025 and 2100.

    The general view seems to be that there are various tipping points, and if we exceed those, there won't be anything we can do. We're approaching another pretty big one, but we've passed a couple so far. It's not true, and to my knowledge no one on the left claims, that if we just made our carbon footprint zero, climate change would stop.

    Rather, the case is rather like someone who smokes, drinks, and has a horrible diet. Early on, they can stop and not much bad is likely to happen. As they persist, however, certain changes in their health will come about, and once they do, there's nothing that can be done. Atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, cancer, and finally death--those are the steps along the way. Does the fact that once one of those happens there's nothing that can be done mean that the person shouldn't clean up their act? No, clearly not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    It is relevant because it is NOAA that tracks sea level trends, not the Smithsonian that publishes leftist propaganda from Climate Central.
    Your sources are completely bogus, which explains why you believe such lies.[/quote]

    Really? It seems to me that NOAA agrees with my figure, and not yours. See:

    Is sea level rising?

    Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov

    The link you posted says that there are stations in the United States whose measurements are consistent with a sea level rise of 1.7 mm/year. That proposition does not imply that the seas are rising at that rate.

    Example: The events of the day are consistent with the possibility that Albert Einstein faked his own death. However, that they are does not mean that Albert Einstein faked his own death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Unfortunately, you have also demonstrated that you lack any desire to learn the truth from peer-reviewed sources. Which makes you hopelessly indoctrinated, and a complete waste of my time.
    Anyone who has spent any time in internet discussion recognizes this threadbare tactic as that of someone who wants to get away from a discussion they fear might be lost. If it were really true this discussion were a waste of your time, you'd have just stopped responding. Instead, what you've done here is cast a bunch of insults, which directly implies you cannot think of much else.

  8. #178
    Student Marine Electric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    261

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions | Fox News





    I'm glad that at least some in the MSM are reporting that this apocalyptic climate nonsense as just that, nonsense.
    Hey, I know how you can disprove the science of human-made-global-warming;

    Sit in your car and run it in an enclosed garage for an hour or so -- record the event on your cell phone -- you show those crazy scientists the truth that the exhaust from burning fossil fuels has no effect on the air.



  9. #179
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    63,938

    Re: Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

    It's almost like you should listen to scientists and not journalists when it comes to complex scientific topics.
    “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't know who [Individual-1] is and neither do you.

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •