• 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!

Scientist say the pace of sea level rise has nearly tripled since 1990's

Winston

Advanced stage dementia patient pls support my run
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,493
Reaction score
23,598
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-tripled-since-1990/?utm_term=.e1b0345eec50

A new scientific analysis finds that the Earth’s oceans are rising nearly three times as rapidly as they were throughout most of the 20th century, one of the strongest indications yet that a much feared trend of not just sea level rise, but its acceleration, is now underway.

“We have a much stronger acceleration in sea level rise than formerly thought,” said Sönke Dangendorf, a researcher with the University of Siegen in Germany who led the study along with scientists at institutions in Spain, France, Norway and the Netherlands.

Their paper, just out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, isn’t the first to find that the rate of rising seas is itself increasing — but it finds a bigger rate of increase than in past studies. The new paper concludes that before 1990, oceans were rising at about 1.1 millimeters per year, or just 0.43 inches per decade. From 1993 through 2012, though, it finds that they rose at 3.1 millimeters per year, or 1.22 inches per decade.

The cause, said Dangendorf, is that sea level rise throughout much of the 20th century was driven by the melting of land-based glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms, but sea level rise in the 21st century has now, on top of that, added in major contributions from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

“The sea level rise is now three times as fast as before 1990,” Dangendorf said

Source of study

Better get building those water walls in New York and coastal cities, so the Koch's stock portfolio can go up a couple points. We MUST PROTECT KOCH PROFITS!
 
You seem to be rather Koch-obsessed today.
 
Which, even if it were true, would have what to do with this topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit...others#Climate_change_and_use_of_fossil_fuels

The Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. In 2011, the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts reported that "Koch Industries and its subsidiaries emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon dioxide from 50 sites", as much as is typically emitted by five million cars.[101] A study from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University reported that "n 2011 and 2012, Koch Industries Public Sector LLC, the lobbying arm of Koch Industries, advocated for the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have rolled back the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could regulate greenhouse gases."[102][103]

The Koch Foundation is a major funder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort to address the criticism of records of the earth's surface temperatures. At least two of the project's seven scientists are seen as climate change skeptics by many in the climate science world.[104] In an article about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (Chair Richard A. Muller), Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt called the Koch Brothers "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning".[105] UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller initially concluded that global warming climate data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[106][107]

The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave the Smithsonian Institution two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010 to support research of climate skeptic Dr. Willie Soon. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[108] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[109] which was questioned by other researchers.[110]

According to the environmentalist group Greenpeace, organizations that the Koch brothers help fund such as Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, and the Manhattan Institute have been active in questioning global warming.[111] Through Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include equivalent tax cuts.[102][112][113][114]

In 2010, Koch Industries supported efforts to roll back emission regulations in California.[115][116]

The Koch brothers' Lambe Foundation has donated to the American Energy Alliance, an offshoot of the Institute for Energy Research.[117]

In January 2011, Rolling Stone magazine included the Koch brothers on its list of the top twelve people blocking progress on global warming.[118]

In March 2015, the general counsel of Koch Industries, in a letter responding to a request from three Senate Democrats, wrote that "The activity efforts about which you inquire, and Koch’s involvement, if any, in them, are at the core of the fundamental liberties protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution", and declined to cooperate with the senators' inquiry into the funding of researchers skeptical of climate change.[119][120]

The Kochs have also funded efforts to stop the growth of solar power
 
That's about the most absurdly-biased Wikipedia article I've read.

Have you ever done any actual research into their views and motivations as to these things? Can you give me their positions in THEIR words, and not their critics'?

Actions speak louder than words. If the Kochs fund anti-AGW propganda think tanks, and the Koch's also fund politicians that routinely vote against Climate Change measures, and side with the oil and gas industry, that says more than your PR statement to the press.
 
Actions speak louder than words.

There's a difference between their "actions," and their critics' interpretations of their actions. Most of the links for those Wikipedia references go to opinion pieces critical of the Kochs.

If the Kochs fund anti-AGW propganda think tanks

See? This is a label indicating that you decide what your preferred conclusion is, and you work backwards from there.

and the Koch's also fund politicians that routinely vote against Climate Change measures

Who?

For what purpose?

What is the specific reason they oppose specific legislation?

What other issues do they favor which might also align with the Koch's viewpoints?

and side with the oil and gas industry

On what basis? On what policies? And specifically, why?

that says more than your PR statement to the press.

I didn't ask you for a "PR" statement. I asked if you could state their positions and beliefs as THEY see them, not as their attackers do, as in, do you actually understand where they're coming from, from their own point of view? You obviously cannot, and do not. They're just catch-all boogeymen.
 
Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, things are warming up. Yes, sea levels will rise some. Yes, our activities have some impact.

I don't care though. I grew up in the north and now I live in the south, and snow sucks.
 
There's a difference between their "actions," and their critics' interpretations of their actions. Most of the links for those Wikipedia references go to opinion pieces critical of the Kochs.



See? This is a label indicating that you decide what your preferred conclusion is, and you work backwards from there.



Who?

For what purpose?

What is the specific reason they oppose specific legislation?

What other issues do they favor which might also align with the Koch's viewpoints?



On what basis? On what policies? And specifically, why?



I didn't ask you for a "PR" statement. I asked if you could state their positions and beliefs as THEY see them, not as their attackers do, as in, do you actually understand where they're coming from, from their own point of view? You obviously cannot, and do not. They're just catch-all boogeymen.

Harshaw, The Kochs make their money in oil and gas. They make billions of dollars. They use that money to wield political influence. It's not that complicated. And it's not something that requires pouring over links or debating with strangers online. Do you have anything to add onto the WaPo reporting that AGW is causing our sea levels to rise?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-tripled-since-1990/?utm_term=.e1b0345eec50



Source of study

Better get building those water walls in New York and coastal cities, so the Koch's stock portfolio can go up a couple points. We MUST PROTECT KOCH PROFITS!

Someone needs to alert NOAA.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05...shows-no-coastal-sea-level-rise-acceleration/

NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration.
These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
The longest NOAA tide gauge data coastal sea level rise measurement record is at The Battery in New York with its 160 year long data record showing a steady rate of sea level rise of about 11 inches per century. . . .
 
Harshaw, The Kochs make their money in oil and gas. They make billions of dollars. They use that money to wield political influence. It's not that complicated.

No, it actually is considerably more complicated than that; you're just not interested in digging any deeper than "Kochs BAD!"

And it's not something that requires pouring over links or debating with strangers online.

Then it sounds like you'd be more comfortable somewhere other than on a DEBATE site. Maybe you should look into that.

Do you have anything to add onto the WaPo reporting that AGW is causing our sea levels to rise?

Well, according to YOU, the topic is the Kochs. You said this when I asked YOU what they had to do with the WaPo reporting that AGW is causing our sea levels to rise. YOU made the Kochs the topic, so I'm discussing YOUR topic.

If it wasn't what you wanted to discuss, you shouldn't have brought it up. On a DEBATE site.
 
No, it actually is considerably more complicated than that; you're just not interested in digging any deeper than "Kochs BAD!"



Then it sounds like you'd be more comfortable somewhere other than on a DEBATE site.



Well, according to YOU, the topic is the Kochs. You said this when I asked YOU what they had to do with the WaPa reporting that AGW is causing our sea levels to rise. YOU made the Kochs the topic, so I'm discussing YOUR topic.

If it wasn't what you wanted to discuss, you shouldn't have brought it up. On a DEBATE site.

LOL, You're making an ass out of yourself.
 
LOL, You're making an ass out of yourself.

No, I took you on your own terms, and now you're running from the topic you yourself introduced. You made it about the Kochs. Now, you don't want to debate the Kochs.
 
No, I took you on your own terms, and now you're running from the topic you yourself introduced. You made it about the Kochs. Now, you don't want to debate the Kochs.

Okay, you want to debate the Kochs I'll start a Koch thread in general discussion and we can debate them. The OP is an irreverent remark to show how public policy is crafted to benefit a small few.

I'm going to exercise right now but I'll give my full opinion on the Kochs for you to snipe away at by 5pm. And I will post it in general.
 
Okay, you want to debate the Kochs I'll start a Koch thread in general discussion and we can debate them. The OP is an irreverent remark to show how public policy is crafted to benefit a small few.

Which apparently was the thesis statement of this thread. :shrug: Again, that's what you yourself made it. It's not even a question of my "wanting" to debate the Kochs. It's a question of your making a thread about them and then NOT wanting to.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-tripled-since-1990/?utm_term=.e1b0345eec50



Source of study

Better get building those water walls in New York and coastal cities, so the Koch's stock portfolio can go up a couple points. We MUST PROTECT KOCH PROFITS!
In spite of the hype of stories like these, a look at the actual data shows that the sea level rise has been fairly consistent.
Sea levels are rising, at much the same rate that they have been for over a century.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
Just for fun, I thought I would plot what a 1.1 to 3.1 change at 1990 would look like.
1.1 to 3.1_1990_deflection.jpg
There may well be places in PSMSL data set that show a change like that, but it would likely be some type of subsidence.
 
Which apparently was the thesis statement of this thread. :shrug: Again, that's what you yourself made it. It's not even a question of my "wanting" to debate the Kochs. It's a question of your making a thread about them and then NOT wanting to.

Well I wouldn't have brought them up at all if I thought there was someone out there who challenges that they fund propaganda think tanks and fund politicians that legislate against climate change reform. The Kochs are deserving of their own thread. This thread is about sea levels and AGW, which the Kochs have a vested interest in denying.
 
Well I wouldn't have brought them up at all if I thought there was someone out there who challenges that they fund propaganda think tanks and fund politicians that legislate against climate change reform. The Kochs are deserving of their own thread. This thread is about sea levels and AGW, which the Kochs have a vested interest in denying.

You are responsible for the consequences of your own posts.
 
Well I wouldn't have brought them up at all if I thought there was someone out there who challenges that they fund propaganda think tanks and fund politicians that legislate against climate change reform.

That isn't what I said. What I said requires thought beyond that of "Kochs BAD!!!" or "Kochs GUD!!!!" But that seems to be where you're stuck here.


The Kochs are deserving of their own thread. This thread is about sea levels and AGW, which the Kochs have a vested interest in denying.

Well, that's kind of the whole point, dude. They don't, in fact, "deny" it, but you think they do, and aren't interested in finding out otherwise.
 
That isn't what I said. What I said requires thought beyond that of "Kochs BAD!!!" or "Kochs GUD!!!!" But that seems to be where you're stuck here.

So, the Kochs don't do everything that I showed you they do. Unbelievable. I KO'd your entire argument with one wikipedia link. And you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not dragging an argument about the Kochs out because you can't accept this logic:

Since the Koch brothers make billions of dollars in oil and gas and they fund propaganda think tanks that disseminate misleading information and they fund politicians that vote against Climate Change, then they are standing in the way of progress. They are preventing public policy from happening. The Koch brothers are one example. Ken Salazar is another one. Ken Salazar was the head of HRC's transiition team. It goes both ways.


Well, that's kind of the whole point, dude. They don't, in fact, "deny" it, but you think they do, and aren't interested in finding out otherwise.

Okay, they don't "deny" clmate change. They may accept it exists privately. But, they do plenty to prevent Climate Change legislation from taking place.

NYT said:
Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

According to the Center For Public Integrity, ALEC received $150,000 from Charles and David Koch in 2011

Koch Brothers Backing Misleading Anti-Solar Campaign in Florida | PR Watch

The Koch brothers and utility giants are bankrolling a ballot initiative in Florida to block the development of home solar and to protect the utilities' continuing oligopoly on energy generation in the Sunshine State

Kochs may not "deny" climate change, but they certainly do, what you want to argue they don't do, because they own the tarsands.
 
In spite of the hype of stories like these, a look at the actual data shows that the sea level rise has been fairly consistent.
Sea levels are rising, at much the same rate that they have been for over a century.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
Just for fun, I thought I would plot what a 1.1 to 3.1 change at 1990 would look like.
View attachment 67217941
There may well be places in PSMSL data set that show a change like that, but it would likely be some type of subsidence.

What do you think about the credibility of the study in the OP? The one the WaPo is basing their reporting on?

EDIT: Link
 
Back
Top Bottom