• 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!

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past

Deuce said:
105 year old man got a notice in the mail because he hadn't been signed up for kindergarten.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that one.. but .. yes.. that sounds about right. I'll have to track it down to confirm, and then add it to my list!
 
Erie Pennsylvania would be Lake Effect snow. Only snows a lot there if the Great Lakes aren't frozen and which way the winds are blowing. This actually kind of disproves the OP's point. This late in the Winter the Lakes should be frozen by now. Must be fairly warm Winter if the Lakes aren't frozen yet.

So Lake Effect doesn't really count or matter when discussing any weather pattern.
 
SirGareth said:
Do you have any idea how tiny giga-tons are when using it as a measure of global scale. We have "pumped" one part in ten thousand of CO2 into the air since the industrial revolution. (nothing)

CO2 is not poison but the breath of life for all hydrocarbon life forms on Earth which is pretty much the same as 100% of all life on Earth.

We are not "pumping CO2" any more than whales are "pumping whale crap into the oceans. C02 is not pollution but instead is the primary food source of all life on Earth on the land and in the oceans.

In the seas its CO2 ---> Phytoplankton----->krill---------> (and so forth up the food chain.) The polar waters are the most prolific and abundant in sea life of all waters on Earth ONLY because t colder polar waters holds far more CO2 (fish food) in solution.

On the land it's the same story where grasses and trees (including all food grain crops, fruit trees, and vegetables) are literally starving for more CO2, why do you think it's only a trace gas?

CO2 is assimilated rapidly by the eco-system of the Earth which depends on it of survival:

Have a look:

Now you know why greenhouses add CO2 to the the indoor air to help get their plants growing. In addition, more CO2 means more drought resistant crops and the Earth has had as much as 20 times as much CO2 as today's near starvation levels of CO2, contributing to increased desertification.

Your rhetoric indicates only that you have been thoroughly brainwashed. Seek professional de-programming.
Click to expand...

Guy, NOBODY is saying that there won't be some areas that will be better off! What we DO worry about is that because the world will be so much warmer, the ice caps will melt, and many of the cities and low-lying areas of the nations of the world will be flooded and uninhabitable. As for as the US goes, most of Florida and most of the rest of the population that live near the Gulf Coast will be forced to move inland - WAY inland. That's tens of millions of Americans displaced...and no, thanks to the Karst topography of Florida, it won't work to put a seawall there - southern Florida is toast.

But that's just America. What happens in Asia when the tens of millions of Bangladeshis have to move since most of their nation will be underwater? Same thing for so many other coastal areas - and I'm not sure if you knew this, but the majority of humanity lives within about 50 miles of coastline. When populations shifts of such magnitude happen, other things come with it - like war and starvation and the poverty and disease that follow them. And that, sir, is a threat to our national security (as the DOD states here). From a later report:

For this reason, the United States military already regards environmental factors as a national security threat. Two years ago, in response to questions from Congress, the Pentagon issued a report identifying the specific environment-related threats facing each geographic combatant command. The list of factors enumerated by the Pentagon was daunting, and included sea level rise, more frequent and more severe weather events, a significant decrease in Arctic ice cover and the risks of more devastating floods and higher temperatures, among many others.

And these aren't all hypothetical situations – some climate change effects are adversely impacting the military now. The Naval station in Norfolk, Virginia, the headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, already floods 10 times a year. The sea level at the base has risen 14.5 inches since it was built at the end of World War I. Each flood detracts from military readiness and slows the normal operations of the base.

Okay? But don't listen to any of this, now - just keep looking at your pictures of trees and telling yourself that it's a good thing, really it is! Don't listen to the people - even our own military - who can see it happening already with their own eyes....
 
Another kool-aid drinking Marxist has joined the fray, show him a government made graph and he gets stiff.

You do realize you are displaying graphed "estimates," not data?

This graph of "estimates" was made by the same outfit that "estimated" the final cost of shuttle payload (averaged over all missions) to be $657/lb for payload delivery (inflation adjusted).

As it turned out the actual figure was $27000/lb for payload delivery. (41 times greater)

Boeing developed the 747 roughly during the same time.

Had NASA designed the B-747, the cost of a single coast-to-coast coach air ticket would be over $50,000 for one seat in coach.

Each shuttle was "estimated" by NASA to make one flight every 6 days, it turned out to be about 1/60th of this figure. If they had designed the B-747 it would take 60 days to get each B-747 "fixed up" for the next flight and about 1/3 of the aircraft aircraft built would have crashed.

This is not to compare the B-747 with the space shuttle but only to illustrate how useless government "estimates" are.

The government stated goal of the shuttle (STS) was to lower the cost of lifting payload to Low Earth Orbit.

To begin with government is the home of the incompetent since it attracts only the kind of people who cant stand to be judged for their work and who also can never be fired for incompetence.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to believe what they put out if they were not a committed Marxist to begin with?
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
G What we DO worry about is that because the world will be so much warmer, the ice caps will melt, and many of the cities and low-lying areas of the nations of the world will be flooded and uninhabitable. As for as the US goes, most of Florida and most of the rest of the population that live near the Gulf Coast will be forced to move inland - WAY inland. That's tens of millions of Americans displaced...and no, thanks to the Karst topography of Florida, it won't work to put a seawall there - southern Florida is toast.
etc etc etc
Click to expand...

People in the USA endure annual temperature changes that span as much as 180 degrees F in one year (100 degrees C).

You are "worried" about an average temperature change of one or two degrees up or down over the course of a century?

This gives whole new meaning to the phrase "snowflake generation"

There are so many flaws in your reasoning its hard to know where to begin:

First, neither the ice of Antarctica (93.2% of world ice) and Greenland (6.2% of world ice) is melting. The SMB of each land mass is positive (annual ice accumulation is greater than annual melt)

While it is true that over the past centuries more ice has be accumulating than melting, both land masses are currently shedding about 100 billions tons/yr of previously acquired ice annually (a figure so tiny, no one can be certain of its accuracy.) This is glacial calving, not "melting," and one century's worth of it would raise the sea level by about 4 inches. This would indicate a slowing of sea rise by historical norms.

Sea level rise at such low levels is not so simple, in fact many areas of the globe the sea levels are falling, this is due to glacial rebound as the land is sill slowing rising due the the fact the glaciers of the last ice age that covered most of the Northern temperate zone including 1/3 of the lower 48 states melted thousands of years ago, is now gone.

In addiction plate tectonics is still actively working and the Indian subcontinent which is colliding with Asia is still pushing Mt Everest upwards by over 4 mm per year. Average annual sea rise (by IPCC) estimates is only 3.2 mm/year. Bangladesh has plenty of problems, but sea level RISE is not among them

This "panic" from wikipedia:
Global warming is dangerous in Tuvalu since the average height of the islands is less than 2 metres (6.6 ft) above sea level, with the highest point of Niulakita being about 4.6 metres (15 ft) above sea level.
Click to expand...

Is countered by this:


The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.
A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.
Click to expand...


https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html


The United States Military Forces are directed to worry about the things the President as their commander-in-chief tells them to worry about.

Under Obama they were worried about accommodating "transgendered" (there is no such thing) in the showers and battling "climate change" with cannons, missiles, guns, and bombs.

Under Trump they are now refocused on battling our actual enemies.

Here is a more immediate DoD problem than "the ice is ls all melting....the ice is all melting..." chicken little bull****.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...test-woe-her-troubled-class-ships/1057914001/


You appear to me as having the mind of a gullible child, so willing to please your superiors that you are inclined to believe all the BS they peddle, your mind appears to have atrophied through lack of use. Your teachers are not very bright people; bright people don't teach, bright people "do." Both teachers and government "scientists" are attracted to the same facit of living off of the taxpayers dime, they cannot be fired for incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Guy, NOBODY is saying that there won't be some areas that will be better off! What we DO worry about is that because the world will be so much warmer, the ice caps will melt, and many of the cities and low-lying areas of the nations of the world will be flooded and uninhabitable. As for as the US goes, most of Florida and most of the rest of the population that live near the Gulf Coast will be forced to move inland - WAY inland. That's tens of millions of Americans displaced...and no, thanks to the Karst topography of Florida, it won't work to put a seawall there - southern Florida is toast.
Click to expand...

How much sea level rise do you expect to happen at most by 2100?

Do you think that this level (60cm or so at max) is likely to flood any city in the world?
 
SirGareth said:
In addiction plate tectonics is still actively working and the Indian subcontinent which is colliding with Asia is still pushing Mt Everest upwards by over 4 mm per year. Average annual sea rise (by IPCC) estimates is only 3.2 mm/year. Bangladesh has plenty of problems, but sea level RISE is not among them.
Click to expand...

The mountains are going up at that speed but the lowlands are not. They are very slow to rise by such tectonic action.

However, the rate of deposition in Bangladesh is 2cm per monsoon if you are 10km away from the rivers. You will have to try very hard to find many places 10km away from the rivers. Closer to the river it is much more.

Bangladesh will be bigger than it is now in 100 years. So will Florida as the processes which have built it up as the world's biggest sand bar continue to opperate.
 
Both the landmasses of the Indian subcontinent and the Eurasian land masses are rising due to the collision which is still advancing. I don't know why Bangladesh should rise any more slowly than the rest of the subcontinent. Its not the surface layer but whats going on hundreds of miles beneath that governs this lift.

Your point about river basin silting is well taken, Ancient Troy, once a sea port, is now many miles inland.

All this BS about sea rise inundating coastal cities is pure BS used as effective fodder only for the hopelessly gullible. Coastal erosion brought on by poor land management is the only real problem and it has nothing to do with the imaginary chimera called CO2 "pollution"
 
Last edited:
longview said:
A coworker once said the biggest problem with Y2K, was that it came with an expiration date!
Click to expand...

It sure was a tremendous boost to the economy though.
 
LowDown said:
Erie, Pennsylvania, Has Broken Its All-Time Snow Season Record

And there are lots of other examples of increased snowfall this winter from all over the world.

But bona fide climate science predictions about the end of snow have been pushed off into the future.

A group of government climate scientists in Hawaii predict an end of snow on peaks of Hawaiian volcanos (it's normal for snow to fall there) by the end of this century.

Another group at UCLA predicts a reduction of snow in the Sierras by the end of the century. Link

Also, an Irish group of government climate scientists makes a similar claim.

We no longer seem to have these moments where scientists and advocates predict the end of snow in 5 years. That sort of thing hasn't been working out for them.

It's safe enough for them to predict that there will be no snow in 70 years. They'll all probably be retired by them.
Click to expand...

Retired or dead. Where I live in Georgia we usually get snow about once every ten years or so. We had snow twice this winter and it ain't over. One year doesn't produce a trend, but it is enough to say, HMM!
 
Perotista said:
Retired or dead. Where I live in Georgia we usually get snow about once every ten years or so. We had snow twice this winter and it ain't over. One year doesn't produce a trend, but it is enough to say, HMM!
Click to expand...

Yep.

It's enough to question what AGW really means.
 
Perotista said:
Retired or dead. Where I live in Georgia we usually get snow about once every ten years or so. We had snow twice this winter and it ain't over. One year doesn't produce a trend, but it is enough to say, HMM!
Click to expand...

This wretched "science" creates tables of monthly "estimates" (accurate to 1/100 of a degree no less) of what the entire Earths "average" temperature "must have been like" 120 years ago and then "estimates" what the entire Earth's temperature "must be like" today; it then proclaims it the hottest (month, year, decade, or century) ever (by 1/100 of a degree). Voila - it's magic!

IF is turns out it isn't hotter today than they want then its time to re-estimate what the temperature must have been like 120 years ago, invariably their new estimates make the past colder.

As for what "might happen" in the near future, global warming can do anything (including everything or nothing); that's what's so wonderful about this "science" - it works just like a magic 8-ball answering all questions, one way or another.

As you have noted, it's the distant future, after everyone alive now is thoroughly dead, that the manure is "estimated" to really hit the fan; when it turns out that's its all a gigantic ball of crap the warranty will have been fully expired.

We live in an age of bull**** and global warming is wearing the prince's crown.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

It's enough to question what AGW really means.
Click to expand...

I don't worry about AGW, we'll blow ourselves up before it becomes a problem. If it is true. Old Mother Nature has made this earth a heck of a lot hotter in the past and a lot colder to include the earth being covered wholly in ice.
 
SirGareth said:
This wretched "science" creates tables of monthly "estimates" (accurate to 1/100 of a degree no less) of what the entire Earths "average" temperature "must have been like" 120 years ago and then "estimates" what the entire Earth's temperature "must be like" today; it then proclaims it the hottest (month, year, decade, or century) ever (by 1/100 of a degree). Voila - it's magic!

IF is turns out it isn't hotter today than they want then its time to re-estimate what the temperature must have been like 120 years ago, invariably their new estimates make the past colder.

As for what "might happen" in the near future, global warming can do anything (including everything or nothing); that's what's so wonderful about this "science" - it works just like a magic 8-ball answering all questions, one way or another.

As you have noted, it's the distant future, after everyone alive now is thoroughly dead, that the manure is "estimated" to really hit the fan; when it turns out that's its all a gigantic ball of crap the warranty will have been fully expired.

We live in an age of bull**** and global warming is wearing the prince's crown.
Click to expand...

Mother Nature is going to do whatever she wants. This earth of ours has gone through many warming and cooling cycles and it will continue to do so regardless of what man wants it to do.
 
Perotista said:
Mother Nature is going to do whatever she wants. This earth of ours has gone through many warming and cooling cycles and it will continue to do so regardless of what man wants it to do.
Click to expand...

Question for NASA "scientists"

Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2, yet it's incredibly cold. (average temp -67 F)

Why isn't CO2 making Mars hot as hell?

The partial pressure of CO2 on the Earth is 40 pascals, on Mars the partial pressure of CO2 is 570 pascals or 14.25 times greater (more dense) than it is on the Earth.

What broke CO2's "greenhouse effect" on Mars?
 
SirGareth said:
Question for NASA "scientists"

Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2, yet it's incredibly cold. (average temp -67 F)

Why isn't CO2 making Mars hot as hell?

The partial pressure of CO2 on the Earth is 40 pascals, on Mars the partial pressure of CO2 is 570 pascals or 14.25 times greater (more dense) than it is on the Earth.

What broke CO2's "greenhouse effect" on Mars?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly thing scientists who study this are unaware of it?

Do you think they have no explanation for this, and that you and some pseudonymous denier blogger are the first ones to notice this ?
Despite High Levels Of CO2, Mars Is Cold | Real Science
 
SirGareth said:
Question for NASA "scientists"

Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2, yet it's incredibly cold. (average temp -67 F)

Why isn't CO2 making Mars hot as hell?

The partial pressure of CO2 on the Earth is 40 pascals, on Mars the partial pressure of CO2 is 570 pascals or 14.25 times greater (more dense) than it is on the Earth.

What broke CO2's "greenhouse effect" on Mars?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I'm not a climate expert. With Mars it may have something to do with the distance from the Sun, thus colder than earth. Mars is also smaller than earth and produces less gravity. Perhaps unable to retain a thick enough atmosphere. I suppose there are a whole lot of thing involved than just CO2. The magnetic field of Mars could also have something to do with it.

Until we can set foot on Mars and conduct years and years of experiments, we probably will never know for sure. But I think it boils down to the fact mankind can't control what Mother Natures does or what this old earth of ours does. It wasn't that long ago that everyone was predicting another ice age in our near future. Perhaps all of this is nothing more than political hyperbole intended to make the people do what the government wants them to do. Governmental control of a person's behavior, what they buy or not, what is available or not. Who knows?
 
Threegoofs said:
Do you honestly thing scientists who study this are unaware of it?

Do you think they have no explanation for this, and that you and some pseudonymous denier blogger are the first ones to notice this ?
Despite High Levels Of CO2, Mars Is Cold | Real Science
Click to expand...

From your link:

"It is the pressure, not the CO2 (stupid)"
Click to expand...

Precisely "its the pressure, not the CO2" The specific heat of the atmosphere governs how much daytime time heat it can retain at night.

The specific heat of the atmosphere is controlled by two factors, 1) air pressure and 2) water vapor. (humidity).

The Dead Sea and Death Valley are extraordinarily hot due to the fact that their air pressure is higher then surrounding areas, they don't have higher CO2 concentrations.

The Mohave desert can get very cold at night due to the fact there is little humidity, The rain forests are stinking hot at night only because the humidity is high.

Nowhere on Earth do we see heat trends correspond to local CO2 levels.

Now why do you suppose NASA and our socialist education bureaucracy brainwashes the gullible children by erroneously telling them CO2 makes Venus hot as hell instead of the specific heat of its atmosphere which is 90 times greater than that of the Earth?

Sample of brainwashing:

https://www.universetoday.com/47905/why-is-venus-so-hot/

"You might have heard that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. In fact, down at the surface of Venus it’s hot enough to melt lead. But why is Venus so hot?

Three words: runaway greenhouse effect. .....Furthermore, that atmosphere is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide. As you’ve probably heard, carbon dioxide makes an excellent greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Sun.
Click to expand...

ie complete bull****.

Baited, hooked and landed....

Gotcha!
 
Last edited:
SirGareth said:
From your link:



Precisely "its the pressure, not the CO2" The specific heat of the atmosphere governs how much daytime time heat it can retain at night.

The specific heat of the atmosphere is controlled by two factors, 1) air pressure and 2) water vapor. (humidity).

The Dead Sea and Death Valley are extraordinarily hot due to the fact that their air pressure is higher then surrounding areas, they don't have higher CO2 concentrations.

The Mohave desert can get very cold at night due to the fact there is little humidity, The rain forests are stinking hot at night only because the humidity is high.

Nowhere on Earth do we see heat trends correspond to local CO2 levels.

Now why do you suppose NASA and our socialist education bureaucracy brainwashes the gullible children by erroneously telling them CO2 makes Venus hot as hell instead of the specific heat of its atmosphere which is 90 times greater than that of the Earth?

Sample of brainwashing:

https://www.universetoday.com/47905/why-is-venus-so-hot/



ie complete bull****.

Baited, hooked and landed....

Gotcha!
Click to expand...

So you think scientists are unaware of your brilliant deconstruction of the issue?
 
Tim the plumber said:
How much sea level rise do you expect to happen at most by 2100?

Do you think that this level (60cm or so at max) is likely to flood any city in the world?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're assuming the scientific community is wrong, that it will only be 60cm or less. What you're forgetting is that global warming is a feedback loop - (1) the warmer it gets, the more ice and snow melts, and the less heat is reflected back into space, and so more heat is retained by our atmosphere, and (2) the warmer it gets, the more methane is released by melting permafrost, and the more heat is retained by our atmosphere.

You don't have to take my word for it - that's according to NASA (though the moment the Trump administration sees this website, they'll force NASA to take it down like they did with so many other government websites posting the same kind of scientific data).

Current estimations of sea level rise (again, according to NASA) are as follows:

Projections of global sea level rise by 2100, the year upon which climate modelers typically focus, vary widely depending on modeling methods and on assumptions—the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, and especially how ice sheets will respond to warming air and ocean water. Recent projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet) [Melillo et al., 2014; see sections 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the 2013 IPCC report for detailed discussion].

The projections for the century ahead focus on the two largest contributors: thermal expansion of seawater and melting land ice. The consensus projections in the most recent IPCC report, called the Fifth Assessment or AR5, include dynamic changes in the great ice sheets—an improvement over the previous assessment, AR4, although much remains uncertain in the young field of ice sheet modeling [Church et al., 2013].

In other words, the 60cm you claimed was slightly below the very bottom of the range that the world's scientific community estimates will be the sea level rise by the end of the century.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The problem is that you're assuming the scientific community is wrong, that it will only be 60cm or less. What you're forgetting is that global warming is a feedback loop - (1) the warmer it gets, the more ice and snow melts, and the less heat is reflected back into space, and so more heat is retained by our atmosphere, and (2) the warmer it gets, the more methane is released by melting permafrost, and the more heat is retained by our atmosphere.

You don't have to take my word for it - that's according to NASA (though the moment the Trump administration sees this website, they'll force NASA to take it down like they did with so many other government websites posting the same kind of scientific data).

Current estimations of sea level rise (again, according to NASA) are as follows:

Projections of global sea level rise by 2100, the year upon which climate modelers typically focus, vary widely depending on modeling methods and on assumptions—the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, and especially how ice sheets will respond to warming air and ocean water. Recent projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet) [Melillo et al., 2014; see sections 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the 2013 IPCC report for detailed discussion].

The projections for the century ahead focus on the two largest contributors: thermal expansion of seawater and melting land ice. The consensus projections in the most recent IPCC report, called the Fifth Assessment or AR5, include dynamic changes in the great ice sheets—an improvement over the previous assessment, AR4, although much remains uncertain in the young field of ice sheet modeling [Church et al., 2013].

In other words, the 60cm you claimed was slightly below the very bottom of the range that the world's scientific community estimates will be the sea level rise by the end of the century.
Click to expand...

1, 60cm is bigger than 0.2m. 0.2m is 20cm.

2, The estimates for more than 60cm are based not on science but on hoped for doom scenarios. We can discuss the mechanics of how ice melts and the amount of energy required to do that etc but since you can't do metric units it would be a waste of time.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The problem is that you're assuming the scientific community is wrong, that it will only be 60cm or less. What you're forgetting is that global warming is a feedback loop - (1) the warmer it gets, the more ice and snow melts, and the less heat is reflected back into space, and so more heat is retained by our atmosphere, and (2) the warmer it gets, the more methane is released by melting permafrost, and the more heat is retained by our atmosphere.

You don't have to take my word for it - that's according to NASA (though the moment the Trump administration sees this website, they'll force NASA to take it down like they did with so many other government websites posting the same kind of scientific data).

Current estimations of sea level rise (again, according to NASA) are as follows:

Projections of global sea level rise by 2100, the year upon which climate modelers typically focus, vary widely depending on modeling methods and on assumptions—the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, and especially how ice sheets will respond to warming air and ocean water. Recent projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet) [Melillo et al., 2014; see sections 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the 2013 IPCC report for detailed discussion].

The projections for the century ahead focus on the two largest contributors: thermal expansion of seawater and melting land ice. The consensus projections in the most recent IPCC report, called the Fifth Assessment or AR5, include dynamic changes in the great ice sheets—an improvement over the previous assessment, AR4, although much remains uncertain in the young field of ice sheet modeling [Church et al., 2013].

In other words, the 60cm you claimed was slightly below the very bottom of the range that the world's scientific community estimates will be the sea level rise by the end of the century.
Click to expand...

Well, no.


Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Part III – 19th & 20th century observations

Posted on February 10, 2018 | 55 comments
By Judith Curry
“We are in the uncomfortable position of extrapolating into the next century without understanding the last.” – Walter Munk
Continue reading →

. . . Around the beginning of 19th century, sea levels began to rise, after several centuries associated with cooling and sea level decline. There are only a few historical tide guage records that extend back to 1800, with several along European coasts. Improved time series analysis methods do not support the statistical significance and likelihood levels of the IPCC’s conclusion that sea level rise has accelerated in the 20th century relative to the 19th century.
Recent analyses of 20th century sea level rise find significantly lower values than were cited in the IPCC AR4 and AR5. These lower values between 1900-1990 are more consistent with integral constraints from mass budget analyses. These lower rates of sea level rise have major implications for the assessment of sea level rise and its acceleration in the satellite era since 1993 and also for the baseline scenario of 21st century sea level rise.
There is substantial multi-decadal internal variability in the sea level change record, including an apparent ~60 year oscillation. This variability confounds analyses of sea level rise acceleration and attribution to human caused climate change. . . .



 
Tim the plumber said:

1, 60cm is bigger than 0.2m. 0.2m is 20cm.

2, The estimates for more than 60cm are based not on science but on hoped for doom scenarios. We can discuss the mechanics of how ice melts and the amount of energy required to do that etc but since you can't do metric units it would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

My bad on the difference, but it's YOUR bad for going on to say that the scientists' estimates are not based on science, but on "hoped for doom scenarios". Shame on you. Your first clue should be to remember that the vast majority of human beings - including the vast majority of science - do NOT "hope for" doom scenarios. Maybe you do - maybe that's why you think that the scientists do - but no, they don't. Learn that most people - even the ones you don't like - really do try to do the right thing. The only real differences lay in what one believes that "right thing" to be.
 
LowDown said:
Erie, Pennsylvania, Has Broken Its All-Time Snow Season Record

And there are lots of other examples of increased snowfall this winter from all over the world.

But bona fide climate science predictions about the end of snow have been pushed off into the future.

A group of government climate scientists in Hawaii predict an end of snow on peaks of Hawaiian volcanos (it's normal for snow to fall there) by the end of this century.

Another group at UCLA predicts a reduction of snow in the Sierras by the end of the century. Link

Also, an Irish group of government climate scientists makes a similar claim.

We no longer seem to have these moments where scientists and advocates predict the end of snow in 5 years. That sort of thing hasn't been working out for them.

It's safe enough for them to predict that there will be no snow in 70 years. They'll all probably be retired by them.
Click to expand...

Don't count on any of them being right. We're about to enter a period where energy released by the sun diminishes drastically. Natural cycles.

Last time this occurred was during the 18th century. The Thames, Mississippi and Hudson rivers were among the many that froze up during the mid century winters. The Swedes invaded Denmark by walking their soldiers over the frozen waters separating the two nations. You can look it up, it's all well documented history. But for those doubting warming climate changes that are coming, this will delay those changes but not stop them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom