• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea level rise?

Glen Contrarian said:
The problem with EACH of the examples you present is that the CO2 content was not the only factor that was different in our atmosphere. In each case, the O2 level was significantly higher. I don't know how much experience you do or don't have with elevated O2 levels, but it presents big, big problems when it comes to fires. Imagine what would happen to our forests if the O2 content was as high as it was in any of those instances.
Click to expand...

So more CO2 is a good thing? After all, with more CO2, the fires would burn less fiercely. What?

Glen Contrarian said:
What's more, your examples only address CO2 and O2 - what about the levels of the other gases? What happens when the raw amounts of the other gases remains roughly the same, but only the CO2 and methane levels rise? In other words, your examples are of completely different atmospheres, with completely different concentrations not only of CO2 and O2, but also of methane, of all the noble gases, and particularly of nitrogen.
Click to expand...

As is the CO2 levels of those completely different atmospheres. Aren't those 'pre-industrial' CO2 levels being used as a baseline of comparison in the climate change research as well? Completely different atmospheres, as you stated.

Glen Contrarian said:
What happened to life in those atmosphere simply cannot be used to presume it would be somehow as good - much less somehow better - with a higher CO2 content today.

What's more, at what point does our increase in CO2 concentration stop? Look at the graph below:

View attachment 67207350
Click to expand...
Hey. Why 2 ice cores and then at the edge of an active volcano (well Hawaii and all)? I do believe that volcanoes spew CO2.

Glen Contrarian said:
See how it's skyrocketing? AT WHAT POINT DOES IT LEVEL OUT? At what point does it stop? It's already nearly twice what it was 500 years ago - and if we keep going at this rate, will it level at at three times, four times, ten times what it was before? Your examples only address what it was at three times the pre-industrial level...but at the rate we're going, we might well pass that point within the next fifty years. We're into uncharted territory already (since our atmosphere's chemical makeup is completely unlike the examples you presented)...but then we'd be even further off the edge of the map.
Click to expand...
Running around shouting 'the sky is falling' doesn't suit you Glenn.
Glen Contrarian said:
So why are you even discussing this matter? What is your purpose in doing so? To learn? To determine fact from fiction? Or is it to shut down those stupid big-government liberals who are going to destroy the economy with the "AGW hoax"? If it's the last...it's no hoax. It's here now, today, and even if we do everything we can to stop it, it's still going to get much worse before it starts getting better...but if we do nothing, we're truly going to leave the edge of the map far behind us.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical what all this means. Skeptical of the interpretation of the data, and it's extrapolation into some sort of dire emergency call to action.

I'm not of the position that CO2 levels aren't raising in the atmosphere, that's pretty clear and reasonably accurately measured, but what does it really mean?

What impact is it really going to have?

Those conclusions are what I'm rather skeptical about.
 
eohrnberger said:
So more CO2 is a good thing? After all, with more CO2, the fires would burn less fiercely. What?
Click to expand...

I suggest you do some research as to what happens with elevated O2 levels. Think of all the bad things that happen due to oxidation of materials, particularly ferrous metals. When it comes to higher levels of CO2, the worst thing that will happen - is happening already - is the increase in oceanic acidification - the greater the concentration of CO2 that is adjacent to water, the greater the level of carbonic acid. If you don't think that's a big deal, go ask someone who takes care of aquariums if pH level of the water is a concern for the fish to live.

As is the CO2 levels of those completely different atmospheres. Aren't those 'pre-industrial' CO2 levels being used as a baseline of comparison in the climate change research as well? Completely different atmospheres, as you stated.
Click to expand...

The chemical makeup of our atmosphere does not change by magic - there always, always, always must be a factor (or factors) to make the atmosphere change in its chemical makeup. Even then, unless it's a great event like a supervolcano eruption or an asteroid strike or changes in solar output (or so forth), the chemical makeup of our atmosphere would change very slowly indeed...a hundred years is a very, very short interval indeed. So the pertinent questions are: (1) why are our atmosphere and our oceans warming, and (2) what event could have accounted for such warming on a worldwide scale. I know of no factor that the worldwide scientific community has not addressed - it's been a long, long process of elimination.

Hey. Why 2 ice cores and then at the edge of an active volcano (well Hawaii and all)? I do believe that volcanoes spew CO2.
Click to expand...

If the ice cores were only drawn from there, you might have a point...but they weren't...and you don't:

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

Running around shouting 'the sky is falling' doesn't suit you Glenn.
Click to expand...

Am I? Look again at the graph - the spike is (in the long view) approaching the vertical. Tell me - when will it level out? What would make it level out? What will the effects be by the time it does level out? These are not "sky-is-falling" questions - I've never been one for conspiracy theories - but the evidence is staring you in the face.

I'm skeptical what all this means. Skeptical of the interpretation of the data, and it's extrapolation into some sort of dire emergency call to action.
Click to expand...

But ask yourself, really, why are you skeptical? What, exactly, would be a sensible explanation for the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community - including every single national science foundation of every developed nation - to be wrong?
 
eohrnberger said:
I'm not of the position that CO2 levels aren't raising in the atmosphere, that's pretty clear and reasonably accurately measured, but what does it really mean?

What impact is it really going to have?

Those conclusions are what I'm rather skeptical about.
Click to expand...

The CO2 levels are rising - every gallon of gasoline burned releases twenty pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere. The ice caps (arctic and Greenland, Antarctic to a significantly lesser extent) are melting relatively very quickly. The oceans are rising. The oceans are becoming more acidic. The atmosphere is getting significantly warmer - the arctic has increased more quickly than any other area.

All of these are fact.

It is also a fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists - including not just climatologists, but those of disciplines that affect or are affected by our climate - agree about AGW. It is also a fact that quite a few of those scientists (though certainly not all) who do deny AGW are funded in whole or in part by corporations that might face financial difficulty if climate-change regulation is implemented.

It is a fact that the world's insurance industry is quite concerned about global warming...and it's crucial to their industry to know what's not a real concern...and what is a very real concern:

The chairman of Lloyd’s
of London has said that climate change is the number one
issue for that massive insurance group. And Europe’s
largest insurer, Allianz, stated that climate change
stands to increase insured losses from extreme events
in an average year by 37 per cent within just a decade.
Losses in a bad year could top US$1 trillion. Insurers
increasingly recognise that it is the lack of action to combat
climate change that is the true threat to their industry
and the broader economy; engaging with the problem
and mounting solutions represents not only a duty to
shareholders but also a boon for economic growth.

The insurance sector thus finds itself on the front lines
of climate change. The response of many, particularly in
the United States, has been to focus on financial means
for limiting their exposure to high-risk areas along the
coastlines and areas prone to wildfires. Allstate, for
instance, has said that climate change has prompted it
to cancel or not renew policies in many Gulf Coast states,
with recent hurricanes wiping out all of the profits it had
garnered in 75 years of selling homeowners insurance.
The company has cut the number of homeowners’
policies in Florida from 1.2 million to 400,000 with an
ultimate target of no more than 100,000. The company
has curtailed activity in nearly a dozen other states.

If you can't listen to the world's scientific community, then listen to the insurance industry - to them, it's not politics, but a matter of their bottom line (just as opposing AGW legislation is important to the bottom line of Big Oil).
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, 'cause the sea level rises all on its own, by magic, y'know! And cruise liners are able to travel the northwest passage because the ice melted by magic, too. And the small island nations that are slowly getting flooded out of existence because of the rise of the sea level, that's magic, too!

Yes, there will be scientists who deny global warming...just as there are scientists who deny general relativity. But when the physical effects of the planet warming are plain to see for all, it's simple idiocy to try to deny it.
Click to expand...

You mean physical effects that has been trending for hundreds of years? Sure.
 
eohrnberger said:
I didn't deny anything, I question the veracity of the science, a reasonable thing to do.
I also observe that the climate is a never static thing, it is constantly changing, as ample scientific evidence would prove.

Given that we are still coming out of an Ice Age which ended some 10,000 years ago, is is not reasonable that the climate would be getting warmer?

Anyway, there was a period in the Earth's history in which there were no ice caps at the poles at all, in fact there were dinosaurs and ferns growing there, according to fossil evidence (in fact both covered the entire planet). Also in this evidence was that the temperatures and CO2 were higher then than it is even now.

If you really are worried about green house gasses, then you'd have to concede that methane is about 20 times the green house gas impact of CO2 (actually that's a fact). Also a fact is that the greatest source of methane is animal husbandry, specifically beef cattle. You gonna mandate fart collectors for all the cattle?

Lastly, there is another not often discussed source of green house gasses: Human population itself. With each exhale, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. The human population has double in the last what? 15 / 20 years? Really any surprise that there's more CO2 in the air?

Agree or not, or agree to disagree, this science of climate change, and the 'solutions' that it keeps proposes, also keeps missing these significant 'other' factors, the uncomfortable and possibly politically incorrect, ones to discuss, and it's kinda hard to take it more seriously until it does so on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Says CO2 levels are higher because there are more people on the earth breathing.

Yet somehow thinks he knows more than the best scientists in the world.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
longview said:
So 4 new papers out saying that an AGW signal cannot be detected in sea level raise.

Four Studies Find ?No Observable Sea-Level Effect? From Man-Made Global Warming
Click to expand...

I have a little time, so let's show just how much of a joke your post actually is.

You start off with a story from some right wing nutjob site, that claims four studies show no observable effect from AGW.

Well, I picked one of the papers randomly and was able to get the abstract.

Here's the final sentence- generally the conclusion:

"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age."

Basically, it's saying there IS anthropogenic sea level rise. Kinda the exact opposite of the 'news' story, which youlll note talks to no scientists, just denier blogs.


I could waste my time looking up the others, but I think we all know what would be found.

EDIT: I decided to look up another...The first 'published study' is a PhD thesis, which looks to be still unpublished and 300+ pages long, and it also looks like it's mostly suggesting satellite measurements are not accurate enough to detect anthropogenic sea level rise yet because wind driven factors lead to high variability.

Abstract here, since apparently Longview couldn't be bothered to look it up, since he knows CNS news is so reliable...

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-3845.pdf

And abstract of the paper that's an unpublished dissertation:
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01317607/document
 
Lord of Planar said:
But real, factual data cannot be properly "corrected!"
Click to expand...

The satellite data is being corrected. Below are some plots of various releases from
Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado
to illustrate the point. The data that generated them was gleaned from the Internet
Archives Way Back Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

This one done a few years ago just compares the standard plot of sea level as it was
in 2004 and as it appeared ten years later in 2014
24e8482.jpg

You see the obvious uptick in the data, but it really doesn't show how the corrections
over time have increased the rate of sea level rise over the years.

On the next chart the calculated rate of sea level rise is plotted out as a function of time.
Each point is calculated from 1992 to the date shown. Plots over a short span show a
great deal of noise so 2000 was chosen as a starting point. A yearly selection of releases
is depicted. No data from 2009 can be found and releases after 2011 show very little correction.
2s7yxxz.jpg

For example, CU's Release 2004_rel1.2 shows that in 2002 the rate was about 2.5 mm/yr
and CU's release 2006_rel3 shows the rate from 2002 as about 3.1 mm/yr. Ideally each
successive release of data should fall on top of one another, but such is not the case.
Over the years the rate has been corrected to increase by nearly a full millimeter per year.
It's a matter of opinion as to why these corrections have been made, but it is a matter of
fact that the data has been changed.
 
Some people are big fans of Climate Truther conspiracy pseudoscience blogs like "Steve Goddard" and right wing industry funded 'think tanks' like The Heartland Institute which like to make hysterically irrational conspiracy claims like- "The scientists are doctoring the data!'

Fox News Maligns Scientists With Baseless Accusation Of "Doctoring" Sea Level Data

Addressing Questions Regarding the Recent GIA Correction | CU Sea Level Research Group

Of course any rational person would go to the Colorado University website and read the release notes:

Release Notes | CU Sea Level Research Group
 
Quaestio said:
Some people are big fans of Climate Truther conspiracy pseudoscience blogs like "Steve Goddard" and right wing industry funded 'think tanks' like The Heartland Institute which like to make hysterically irrational conspiracy claims like- "The scientists are doctoring the data!'

Fox News Maligns Scientists With Baseless Accusation Of "Doctoring" Sea Level Data

Addressing Questions Regarding the Recent GIA Correction | CU Sea Level Research Group

Of course any rational person would go to the Colorado University website and read the release notes:

Release Notes | CU Sea Level Research Group
Click to expand...

And regarding the 0.3 mm/yr of GIA correction they say,
" In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a
proxy for ocean water volume changes." So why don't
they make a graph of ocean volume? There is no answer
to that question that makes any sense. Well really just
fill in the blank, "We include ocean volume on our graph
of sea level instead of making a graph of ocean volume
because _____________________"

Jason3 is coming on line and I expect the next release to
reflect the input from the new satellite. I wonder if it will
necessitate any corrections and if they will skew things
one way or the other.

Also, CU just put out a new group publication:
"Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?"
What that looks like to me is that they fully intend to find
acceleration. As they say in New York and elsewhere, it
looks like a done deal. I could be wrong, but the "Duck Test"
says I'm not.

So you don't like Steve Goddard. Hmmmm he does engage
in name calling, but nearly every day he posts historical
temperature data that makes the hottest ever claims look
questionable. You can easily verify some of his stuff by
visiting NOAA's Climate at a Glance web page. Hard to
believe, but Maximum heat of the day temperatures have
been dropping for much of the United States. In the
Mississippi valley the decline goes back in some cases to
the 19th century. Check out Arkansas and it's not
the only one.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Okay? No strawman. Simple fact. I didn't say "all" the AGW crowd - I said "most"...and I base that on the fact that the above is posted on one of the most popular AGW-denial sites.
Click to expand...

There you go again, getting your information from blogs.

Did you verify any of it?

Is the blog well sourced?

No!

G.P. Wayne is a left wing activist. Not a scientist.

Does he say "most" say so? Is that why you believe it? Please be careful and stop regurgitating material you haven't verified.

Skeptical Science is not a good source for information. It is biased, one way only.

Why bother bringing in such a stupid strawman argument when nobody here says such things?

That's what building a strawman is. Making a false argument to tear down. We see right through you, and it doesn't look good for you.

Please stop wasting our time. Going off on arguments that don't matter shows you don't understand.

If I ignore you from here on out, it's not because I can't counter what you say. It's because I am on my last straw of wasting time with parrots like you.

Start thinking foe yourself please.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. So the seas are rising because of...magic? If it were because the land was sinking, you'd see degrees of rising and falling all over the place...

...but what the map clearly shows is that over most of the planet, with relatively very few exceptions, the seas are rising to relatively equal degrees...and that canNOT be explained by subsidence of the land. Such a claim would require that most of the land on the planet is sinking at the same time to roughly the same degree...and that's a patently silly proposition.

The only plausible answer is that there is a lot more water than there was before...and we already know that the polar ice cap is shrinking to the point that the northwest passage is now navigable, and Greenland lost a trillion tons of ice in just four years.

THAT, sir, means that there's a heck of a lot more water in our oceans. Do you really think that that much more water in our oceans wouldn't result in the rising of our sea levels?
Click to expand...
The seas in general are rising, because that is the trend they have been on for several thousand years, and the rate does not appear to have changed much.
Why the seas are rising, is the same several thousand years answer, Ice age ice is still melting, no magic necessary.
 
Threegoofs said:
I have a little time, so let's show just how much of a joke your post actually is.

You start off with a story from some right wing nutjob site, that claims four studies show no observable effect from AGW.

Well, I picked one of the papers randomly and was able to get the abstract.

Here's the final sentence- generally the conclusion:

"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age."

Basically, it's saying there IS anthropogenic sea level rise. Kinda the exact opposite of the 'news' story, which youlll note talks to no scientists, just denier blogs.


I could waste my time looking up the others, but I think we all know what would be found.

EDIT: I decided to look up another...The first 'published study' is a PhD thesis, which looks to be still unpublished and 300+ pages long, and it also looks like it's mostly suggesting satellite measurements are not accurate enough to detect anthropogenic sea level rise yet because wind driven factors lead to high variability.

Abstract here, since apparently Longview couldn't be bothered to look it up, since he knows CNS news is so reliable...

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-3845.pdf

And abstract of the paper that's an unpublished dissertation:
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01317607/document
Click to expand...
So when a paper says,
"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age."
Click to expand...
You still think thay are saying they found an anthropogenic signature, you do have your AGW blinders on!
 
longview said:
Nope, that one popped up on yahoo.
Click to expand...

Guess you'll just skip responding to my next post, which showed that the 'papers' in that post showed the opposite of what your headline shows.

Wonder when LoP will be complaining about how it sourced a blog, too.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, 'cause the sea level rises all on its own, by magic, y'know! And cruise liners are able to travel the northwest passage because the ice melted by magic, too. And the small island nations that are slowly getting flooded out of existence because of the rise of the sea level, that's magic, too!

Yes, there will be scientists who deny global warming...just as there are scientists who deny general relativity. But when the physical effects of the planet warming are plain to see for all, it's simple idiocy to try to deny it.
Click to expand...

Many moons ago, a little before I was born, the sea level rose as the ice receded. Slightly before that the sea level fell as the ice pack grew and the Arctic ice headed south. Carving out the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes.

Many moons ago, prior to the ice heading south, Michigan was a tropical area under water. So much so that coral grew in abundance.

During these times not a single human burned a single piece of coal or drove to the store for a 6 pack. There were no humans on earth.

Bottom line. The earth doesn't care about humans one way or the other. It will do what the earth does.
 
jimbo said:
Many moons ago, a little before I was born, the sea level rose as the ice receded. Slightly before that the sea level fell as the ice pack grew and the Arctic ice headed south. Carving out the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes.

Many moons ago, prior to the ice heading south, Michigan was a tropical area under water. So much so that coral grew in abundance.

During these times not a single human burned a single piece of coal or drove to the store for a 6 pack. There were no humans on earth.

Bottom line. The earth doesn't care about humans one way or the other. It will do what the earth does.
Click to expand...

Well, the earth certainly will do what it does when we dump so much CO2 into its atmosphere that we change it back to the Carboniferous Age.

The problem is that we and all our infrastructure are adapted to a different climate, and adjusting to a new one is going to cause major upheavals in human society, not to mention continue the mass extinction of species on the globe.

But the Earth really won't care.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, the earth certainly will do what it does when we dump so much CO2 into its atmosphere that we change it back to the Carboniferous Age.

The problem is that we and all our infrastructure are adapted to a different climate, and adjusting to a new one is going to cause major upheavals in human society, not to mention continue the mass extinction of species on the globe.

But the Earth really won't care.
Click to expand...

CO2 is a mixture of Carbon and Oxygen. Both are present in approximately the same amounts as they were 10,000 years ago. The chemical formula changes. Trees take in the CO2 and use the carbon. Animals take in the CO2 and use the oxygen. In both cases the effect is very temporary.

And the earth doesn't care.
 
jimbo said:
CO2 is a mixture of Carbon and Oxygen. Both are present in approximately the same amounts as they were 10,000 years ago. The chemical formula changes. Trees take in the CO2 and use the carbon. Animals take in the CO2 and use the oxygen. In both cases the effect is very temporary.

And the earth doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Nope. We are digging up long sequestered carbon from the ground and dumping it into our atmosphere at an alarming rate.

The effect is temporary in the sense of geologic time, possibly, but in human terms, that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for your lifetime.
 
jimbo said:
CO2 is a mixture of Carbon and Oxygen. Both are present in approximately the same amounts as they were 10,000 years ago. The chemical formula changes. Trees take in the CO2 and use the carbon. Animals take in the CO2 and use the oxygen. In both cases the effect is very temporary.

And the earth doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Chemical formula's don't change. The same amounts of Carbon and Oxygen on earth but certainly not the same amount in the atmosphere by a long shot.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Not only are you obviously not paying attention to what goes on in the world, you're not even curious enough to Google around to see if what other people say is true.

In other words, instead of actually researching, you're expecting us to spoon-feed you what you should already know.

Okay, so here - have a few spoonfuls.

Weather.com - the nine most endangered islands in the world

Five Pacific islands lost to rising seas thanks to climate change

Pacific islands sinking thanks to climate change

The Marshall Islands are disappearing

But be sure to ignore all the above, because you know - as you've been told all your life - that everything liberals believe is wrong...and so if liberals agree with what the scientists are saying, the scientists must be wrong, too! You've been carefully taught that it's impossible for liberals to be right about anything ever, so you MUST deny AGW, even though all the liberals are doing is agreeing with the worldwide scientific community.
Click to expand...


At the very least, there is a corollary between when sea level rise picked up and anthropogenic contribution occurred, around 1900. Argue that as you will, since the sea level more started rising around 1870. The sea level has proven to risen 10 inches since those 30 years difference, and rising. Any coastal community can be affected by just a couple or few of inches. Not just because of the rise of level, but the storm fury that is a multiplicative of the sea level rise. It’s not like the sea level rises one inch and storm waves get one inch higher. Humans are poor planners. If we act for the future, I believe we are taking care of the present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom