• 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!

Onging alarmism about sea level rise without substence.

calamity said:
Only in how certain people refuse to ever admit how wrong they've been and the damage they do with it. Maybe it will take having their hand-picked president humiliated and shipped off to prison to wake them up to the fact that whatever they are reading is steering them in the wrong direction. But, I doubt it. Most of these folks will just double down on the garbage they believe.
Click to expand...

AGW is the new religion today so how can non belief in it be ?
 
calamity said:
Only in how certain people refuse to ever admit how wrong they've been and the damage they do with it. Maybe it will take having their hand-picked president humiliated and shipped off to prison to wake them up to the fact that whatever they are reading is steering them in the wrong direction. But, I doubt it. Most of these folks will just double down on the garbage they believe.
Click to expand...

Do you want to discuss Mr. President Trump or the sea level rise?
 
jimbo said:
Do you want to discuss Mr. President Trump or the sea level rise?
Click to expand...

lol...you act as if they're mutually exclusive.
 
calamity said:
There is reams of evidence: mathematical, archaeological and historical; showing how a few degrees C will raise sea levels X feet. Without question Temps are rising. So, the only question is by how many Degrees C and when.

Ignoring sea level rise is a fool's errand.
Click to expand...
The theoretical sea level rise from thermal expansion has it's own sets of errors, but that is not what I am talking about.
The alarmist article was speaking about a physical location NYC, and how they were predicting large sections of the city to be
under water by the 2020's, 2050's and 2100.
Those predicted levels are not supported by the empirical data of the NOAA battery park tide gauge.
 
longview said:
The theoretical sea level rise from thermal expansion has it's own sets of errors, but that is not what I am talking about.
The alarmist article was speaking about a physical location NYC, and how they were predicting large sections of the city to be
under water by the 2020's, 2050's and 2100.
Those predicted levels are not supported by the empirical data of the NOAA battery park tide gauge.
Click to expand...

Sea level rise has nothing to do with "thermal expansion." It has everything to do with ice on land melting and running in to the sea and/or ice shelves breaking off and allowing land-based glaciers to fall into it.

Most stories about specific locations are simply meant as click bait. I didn't click.
 
calamity said:
No. Science denial is the religion of the alt Right.
Click to expand...

AGW is a non empirical pseudo science more akin to a theological belief system amongst its proponents. Looking at the hard facts and based on post glacial evidence there really is nothing wrong with our climate whatsoever today which is well within natural norms. Take away the money and the politics and this whole thing is just one gigantic scam
 
calamity said:
Sea level rise has nothing to do with "thermal expansion." It has everything to do with ice on land melting and running in to the sea and/or ice shelves breaking off and allowing land-based glaciers to fall into it.

Most stories about specific locations are simply meant as click bait. I didn't click.
Click to expand...

Again, let me enlighten you to the data from the posted link Longview is claiming that shows no sea level rise.

5d3b13142b9add2d593c806174ce0006.jpg


I'm laughing too.

Reminds me of when he uses the cherry picked year of 1998 to claim a 'pause', but then tells us that 2016's high temps can't be determined yet because you need to use the average 20 months after to find the 'real' number.
 
calamity said:
Sea level rise has nothing to do with "thermal expansion." It has everything to do with ice on land melting and running in to the sea and/or ice shelves breaking off and allowing land-based glaciers to fall into it.

Most stories about specific locations are simply meant as click bait. I didn't click.
Click to expand...
If the sea level were that simple it would be raising everywhere. it is far more complicated,
and thermal expansion is one of the things cited by the IPCC as a contributor to the sea level rise.
But the simple thing is that this thread is about an alarmist article saying NYC would soon be loosing ground to the raising seas.
the problem with such alarmist predictions is that the sea level at NYC has actually been falling for 6 or 7 years.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/12.rlrdata
2009; 7149;N;000
2010; 7185;N;000
2011; 7182;N;000
2012; 7156;N;000
2013; 7124;N;000
2014; 7144;N;000
2015; 7113;N;000
2016; 7132;N;000
Now I know many people have difficulty with math, but even a second grader can tell you that 7185 mm is greater than 7132 mm.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again, let me enlighten you to the data from the posted link Longview is claiming that shows no sea level rise.

5d3b13142b9add2d593c806174ce0006.jpg


I'm laughing too.

Reminds me of when he uses the cherry picked year of 1998 to claim a 'pause', but then tells us that 2016's high temps can't be determined yet because you need to use the average 20 months after to find the 'real' number.
Click to expand...
Goofs I am not sure why you choose to deny that for the last 6 to 7 years the battery park tide gauge has reported a falling sea level.
The tail is plainly visible on your posted graph, but is also present in the numerical data.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/12.rlrdata
2009; 7149;N;000
2010; 7185;N;000
2011; 7182;N;000
2012; 7156;N;000
2013; 7124;N;000
2014; 7144;N;000
2015; 7113;N;000
2016; 7132;N;000
 
longview said:
If the sea level were that simple it would be raising everywhere. it is far more complicated,
and thermal expansion is one of the things cited by the IPCC as a contributor to the sea level rise.
But the simple thing is that this thread is about an alarmist article saying NYC would soon be loosing ground to the raising seas.
the problem with such alarmist predictions is that the sea level at NYC has actually been falling for 6 or 7 years.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/12.rlrdata
2009; 7149;N;000
2010; 7185;N;000
2011; 7182;N;000
2012; 7156;N;000
2013; 7124;N;000
2014; 7144;N;000
2015; 7113;N;000
2016; 7132;N;000
Now I know many people have difficulty with math, but even a second grader can tell you that 7185 mm is greater than 7132 mm.
Click to expand...
1901; 6843;N;000

looks to have gone up about 3 feet since 1900. :roll:
 
calamity said:
1901; 6843;N;000

looks to have gone up about 3 feet since 1900. :roll:
Click to expand...
Such is the nature of noisy environments, but the recent string of 7 years of falling levels will affect the 30 year average necessary
to mean much of anything.
The 30 year average beginning in 1893 was 6818, the 30 years before 2016 averaged 7092, a delta of 274 mm,
centered on 1908 and 2001 for a 93 year rate of 2.94 mm/year.
This is roughly 11 inches.
 
longview said:
Now I know many people have difficulty with math, but even a second grader can tell you that 7185 mm is greater than 7132 mm.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that second graders also know how to read a trend line.
 
Visbek said:
I'm guessing that second graders also know how to read a trend line.
Click to expand...
So are you denying that the sea levels at the battery park tide station have been reporting lower sea levels for the last 7 years?
 
longview said:
So are you denying that the sea levels at the battery park tide station have been reporting lower sea levels for the last 7 years?
Click to expand...
:roll:

No, I'm pointing out that:

1) We are obviously looking at decades of data showing increases in sea levels

2) If you actually look at the data, you will see there were other such short periods of decline, which were not in fact peaks of sea levels

3) You are deliberately ignoring the causal factors that produce the higher projections

3a) You have not provided a single stitch of evidence, proof or reasoning to explain why the projections will be wrong

4) Your logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed

5) Even a climate change denier would have to be pretty desperate to take your claim even remotely seriously
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

No, I'm pointing out that:

1) We are obviously looking at decades of data showing increases in sea levels

2) If you actually look at the data, you will see there were other such short periods of decline, which were not in fact peaks of sea levels

3) You are deliberately ignoring the causal factors that produce the higher projections

3a) You have not provided a single stitch of evidence, proof or reasoning to explain why the projections will be wrong

4) Your logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed

5) Even a climate change denier would have to be pretty desperate to take your claim even remotely seriously
Click to expand...

I am at least glad to see you are not denying the empirical data.
I am not ignoring the long term trend, but embracing it, the fact that it has been consistent since before the period of AGW,
validates that Sea Levels have little to do with AGW.
Also a period of 7 years of falling sea levels, represents 23% of the stated 30 year average period, and would likely alter the alter the average.
3)The casual factors that produce the higher projections have not been observed or validated.
3a)what requires greater evidence, saying that the observed sea level rise will continue to happen as it has,
or that the rate of the rise will accelerate to something that has not been observed in the record?
 
longview said:
I am at least glad to see you are not denying the empirical data.
I am not ignoring the long term trend, but embracing it, the fact that it has been consistent since before the period of AGW,
validates that Sea Levels have little to do with AGW.
Click to expand...
Errr, hello? The data you cite only goes back to 1850. That's all during the period of human impact on the environment.


Also a period of 7 years of falling sea levels, represents 23% of the stated 30 year average period, and would likely alter the alter the average.
Click to expand...
That's nice, but is completely irrelevant, because a) you're still cherry-picking data, and b) ignoring the causal factors.


3)The casual factors that produce the higher projections have not been observed or validated.
Click to expand...
...or, we have tons of data, you're just ignoring it because you think that focusing on 7 years in a chart has some type of causal meaning (which it doesn't).


3a)what requires greater evidence, saying that the observed sea level rise will continue to happen as it has,
or that the rate of the rise will accelerate to something that has not been observed in the record?
Click to expand...
They are both predictions about future sea levels, thus both require the same amount and quality of evidence.

That said, looking at 7 years of data in isolation is not a valid substitute for discussion of causal factors. Again, short-term trends like these are typical, and the result of various changes around the globe (e.g. the 7-year pause you're seeing may be due to areas like Australia soaking up more moisture than usual). Short-term fluctuations like these are normal.

That's why, wait for it... we use longer-term trend lines and try to determine the causalit, instead of cherry-picking selected years.
 
longview said:
Such is the nature of noisy environments, but the recent string of 7 years of falling levels will affect the 30 year average necessary
to mean much of anything.
The 30 year average beginning in 1893 was 6818, the 30 years before 2016 averaged 7092, a delta of 274 mm,
centered on 1908 and 2001 for a 93 year rate of 2.94 mm/year.
This is roughly 11 inches.
Click to expand...

Hmm. One post highlights a short term variation in sea level.

The next post says that noisy data is noisy, and then pretends that cutting up noisy data into arbitrary intervals is a useful exercise.
 
Visbek said:
Errr, hello? The data you cite only goes back to 1850. That's all during the period of human impact on the environment.



That's nice, but is completely irrelevant, because a) you're still cherry-picking data, and b) ignoring the causal factors.



...or, we have tons of data, you're just ignoring it because you think that focusing on 7 years in a chart has some type of causal meaning (which it doesn't).



They are both predictions about future sea levels, thus both require the same amount and quality of evidence.

That said, looking at 7 years of data in isolation is not a valid substitute for discussion of causal factors. Again, short-term trends like these are typical, and the result of various changes around the globe (e.g. the 7-year pause you're seeing may be due to areas like Australia soaking up more moisture than usual). Short-term fluctuations like these are normal.

That's why, wait for it... we use longer-term trend lines and try to determine the causalit, instead of cherry-picking selected years.
Click to expand...
The increase in the rate of sea level rise (acceleration) that is predicted by the concept known as AGW, is predicated on the CO2 related
warming causing the extra sea level increase. The CO2 related warming is generally acknowledged to be that warming after 1950.
Summary for Policymakers ? IPCC
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
Click to expand...
In a system that is predicted to be accelerating I.E. an increase in the rate of the rise, an actual decline even as short as 7 years,
is a strong deviation from the prediction, it may well be within the norm, but the prediction was that the rate of the rise would increase out of the norm.
The actual data is moving in the other direction.
Will it continue? who knows, likely not, but the prediction now has to make up an extra 50 mm in the next 13 years to be in the minimum range of the
prediction. At the current trend of 2.84 mm /yr it would take 17 years to get to the minimum 50 mm increase predicted by the 2020's.
To hit the minimum prediction would require sea levels at NYC to increase at least 3.84 mm/yr for 13 years in a row.
to hit the mid range of their prediction, would require 13 years in a row of 9.8 mm/year,
and the high end, 13 years in a row of 15.38 mm/year.
The low end is possible, but the mid to high range would represent a radical change in the rate of sea level rise.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmm. One post highlights a short term variation in sea level.

The next post says that noisy data is noisy, and then pretends that cutting up noisy data into arbitrary intervals is a useful exercise.
Click to expand...
The NOAA number is a 30 year average, do you deny that 7 years is 23% of 30 years, and falling levels could change the average increase?
 
longview said:
In a system that is predicted to be accelerating I.E. an increase in the rate of the rise, an actual decline even as short as 7 years,
is a strong deviation from the prediction, it may well be within the norm, but the prediction was that the rate of the rise would increase out of the norm.
The actual data is moving in the other direction.
Click to expand...
The prediction is not "sea levels will rise every single year." It's not refuted because of a temporary drop or leveling off of those levels. It's certainly not refuted when you cherry-pick one year with a very high level, and then pick a point later that you use to say "see it fell, it fell!!!"

I do agree that it's useful to understand those kinds of fluctuations, e.g. the current flattening may be due to factors like Australia soaking up more moisture than usual. We may find things that surprise us, and learn about a possible new carbon sink or negative feedback loop.

However, those factors are typically only temporary, and the fundamentals haven't changed. We are still seeing glaciers in retreat; we are still seeing losses of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic; we are still seeing CO2 rising; we are still seeing positive feedback loops; thermal expansion still exists....


Will it continue? who knows, likely not, but the prediction now has to make up an extra 50 mm in the next 13 years to be in the minimum range of the
prediction.
Click to expand...
Unless you're an actual scientist who has done the research, and had it vetted, then your prediction isn't worth the electrons used to display it on my screen.
 
Visbek said:
The prediction is not "sea levels will rise every single year." It's not refuted because of a temporary drop or leveling off of those levels. It's certainly not refuted when you cherry-pick one year with a very high level, and then pick a point later that you use to say "see it fell, it fell!!!"

I do agree that it's useful to understand those kinds of fluctuations, e.g. the current flattening may be due to factors like Australia soaking up more moisture than usual. We may find things that surprise us, and learn about a possible new carbon sink or negative feedback loop.

However, those factors are typically only temporary, and the fundamentals haven't changed. We are still seeing glaciers in retreat; we are still seeing losses of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic; we are still seeing CO2 rising; we are still seeing positive feedback loops; thermal expansion still exists....



Unless you're an actual scientist who has done the research, and had it vetted, then your prediction isn't worth the electrons used to display it on my screen.
Click to expand...

The problem with citing things like the loss of arctic ice, is that, that loss has been ongoing for 12,000 years.
Sea levels do move up and down, but it may have little to do with CO2 warming, and there appears to be no correlation so far.
I know that correlation does not mean causation, but lack of correlation means the causation is very unlikely.
 
Visbek said:
Uh... No. Louisiana is not "sinking." We're way past "sea defenses."

Oil & gas exploration is anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3. Diverting the river is a factor. But so is the increase in sea levels. NOAA has known for years that Louisiana has the highest rate of relative sea level rise of any place in the country, and one of the highest rates anywhere on the planet. (New research: Louisiana coast faces highest rate of sea-level rise worldwide | The Lens)



1) Fail

2) That doesn't change the fact that the rise in sea level is hammering Louisiana, and land that "someone" wants.




Seriously?

Do you not understand that positive feedback loops will accelerate the rate and effects of climate change? What are you, new?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about???

Obviously if it is happening in Louisiana and not the whole world it is an issue with the land of Louisiana sinking. Where in hell does oil exploration come in???

Describe what positive feed back loops can accelerate sea level rise. There are none. In that sea level rise will not cause more ice to melt in any significant way.
 
longview said:
NOAA sea level rise is mostly because the land is subsiding, not the sea level rising. The river was diverted because of the flooding in 1920's and to maintain shipping channels.
When You see Grand Isle at 9+ mm per year,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8761724
within 200 miles of Pensacola at 2.31 mm per year,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8729840
it should give you pause to to consider something other that sea level is involved.
Some additional info.
As Louisiana Sinks And Sea Levels Rise, The State Is Drowning. Fast. | HuffPost
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Often when you explain the obvious you will sound mad if there is nobody else there to agree and support.
 
calamity said:
There is reams of evidence: mathematical, archaeological and historical; showing how a few degrees C will raise sea levels X feet. Without question Temps are rising. So, the only question is by how many Degrees C and when.
Click to expand...



Yes. Even better than that we can look at how much ice would melt given where it is and how much temperature increase would cause it to be meltable.

There is nothing to worry about. There is no large amount of ice vulnerable to melting from the most extreme cases of the IPCC's predictions.

Ignoring sea level rise is a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

Being utterly innumerate about it all says it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom