• 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!

Headlines that are misleading

I have, but while there appears to be a minor correlation between CO2 and the surface troposphere system temperatures,
there is almost zero correlation between CO2 and sea level.
Many of the sea level records are well over a century old, and the most common change in rate is a slowdown.

Sea_Level_Rise_World_Map.jpg

Or there is this recent article, based on a study by the National Academy of Science.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

That projection agrees perfectly with climate models used in the latest International Panel on Climate Change report, which show sea level rise to be between 52 and 98 centimeters by 2100 for a "business as usual" scenario (in which greenhouse emissions continue without reduction).

However, I will agree that 7-feet is an exageration. The upper-end, however, is over 3 feet by 2100.
 
Last edited:
However, I will agree that 7-feet is an exageration. The upper-end, however, is over 3 feet by 2100.

It would be nice if you would agree that three feet is also an exaggeration.
Three feet by 2100 comes to an average of over 11 mm/yr starting right now.
So when is this going to begin to happen? The answer to that rhetorical question
is not anytime soon, and the longer "soon" takes to get here the faster the
average rate will have to be. Oh, and what was the lower-end? Today's rate
of 3 mm/yr extrapolates out to less than a foot by 2100 and that's if it remains
that high.

Well anyway, yes, seven feet is an exaggeration, and it begs the question as to
why the news media exaggerates or at least reports exaggerations - exactly
where did that seven foot figure come from? I wrote earlier, "Have you considered
the possibility that there's something rotten in Denmark?"
 
It would be nice if you would agree that three feet is also an exaggeration.
Three feet by 2100 comes to an average of over 11 mm/yr starting right now.
So when is this going to begin to happen? The answer to that rhetorical question
is not anytime soon, and the longer "soon" takes to get here the faster the
average rate will have to be. Oh, and what was the lower-end? Today's rate
of 3 mm/yr extrapolates out to less than a foot by 2100 and that's if it remains
that high.

Well anyway, yes, seven feet is an exaggeration, and it begs the question as to
why the news media exaggerates or at least reports exaggerations - exactly
where did that seven foot figure come from? I wrote earlier, "Have you considered
the possibility that there's something rotten in Denmark?"

3 feet is the upper end of the model. The lower end is 20 inches. More heat, more melting glaciers and ice = sea level rise. No doubt about it. So far the models have shown to be conservative, so probably closer to the upper end.
 
3 feet is the upper end of the model. The lower end is 20 inches. More heat,
more melting glaciers and ice = sea level rise. No doubt about it. So far the
models have shown to be conservative, so probably closer to the upper end.

20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?

You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.

Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.
 
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?

You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.

Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.

How in the world can you have been immersed in this stuff for a decade and not grasped that virtually all projections of sea level and temperature are accelerating curves?
 
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?

You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.

Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.

The papers usually do an "if we assume" set of modelling. The authors of the papers never say it will happen. It's the pundits who then turn around and lie about the paper.

That's the problem with these warmers listening to the hyped news and pundits, instead of learning the sciences.
 
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?

You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.

Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.

Despite the rhetoric from the fossil-fuel industry pundits, the models have been extremely accurate so far. They know what they're talking about. We're talking about study after study by scientists all over the world. Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect. In other words, once melting starts in areas, it feeds on itself. Thus the non-linear discussion of ThreeGoofs.
 
View attachment 67232022

Or there is this recent article, based on a study by the National Academy of Science.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

That projection agrees perfectly with climate models used in the latest International Panel on Climate Change report, which show sea level rise to be between 52 and 98 centimeters by 2100 for a "business as usual" scenario (in which greenhouse emissions continue without reduction).

However, I will agree that 7-feet is an exageration. The upper-end, however, is over 3 feet by 2100.
Nice! The projections of sea level rise, agree with the projections of warming by models.
You do realize those are both projections?
When someone looks at the actual tide gauge data, it becomes clear that while sea level are raising,
the rate of their rise has been very steady, in the century time frame.
The Satellites are almost incapable of measuring what the tide gauges measure,
say the average sea level in New York harbor.
So far CO2 show have done more that have of the doubling warming, yet the rate of sea level rise
at many of the places warned about has been fairly constant.
 
I wrote:

When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
...
I look forward to your answer.​

How in the world can you have been immersed in this stuff for a decade and not grasped that virtually all projections of sea level and temperature are accelerating curves?

In a few weeks it will be thirty years since Dr. James Hansen famous testimony
before the United States Congress, and it's not happening in all that time. Yes
the projections are accelerating curves. I'm just asking when it's going to begin
to accelerate. Rewriting historical data which was done to the satellite record
earlier this year doesn't actually change the physical world.

Despite the rhetoric from the fossil-fuel industry pundits, the models have been extremely accurate so far. They know what they're talking about. We're talking about study after study by scientists all over the world. Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect. In other words, once melting starts in areas, it feeds on itself. Thus the non-linear discussion of ThreeGoofs.

This little discussion has been about sea level and you talk about floating sea ice:

"Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect."​
As Threegoofs points out, I've been at this for over a decade and in all that time
folks on your side of the coin never seem to get the message that floating ice
doesn't run up sea level when it melts. Oh they will acknowledge that fact,
but just like you, they'll be right back at it a short time later.

There's a well-known quote from George Orwell about restating the obvious,
and what's obvious is that sea level isn't going to suddenly begin to rise twice
as fast as it has over the last several centuries.

You know it, I know it, and Threegoofs knows it.
 
I wrote:

When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
...
I look forward to your answer.​



In a few weeks it will be thirty years since Dr. James Hansen famous testimony
before the United States Congress, and it's not happening in all that time. Yes
the projections are accelerating curves. I'm just asking when it's going to begin
to accelerate. Rewriting historical data which was done to the satellite record
earlier this year doesn't actually change the physical world.



This little discussion has been about sea level and you talk about floating sea ice:

"Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect."​
As Threegoofs points out, I've been at this for over a decade and in all that time
folks on your side of the coin never seem to get the message that floating ice
doesn't run up sea level when it melts. Oh they will acknowledge that fact,
but just like you, they'll be right back at it a short time later.

There's a well-known quote from George Orwell about restating the obvious,
and what's obvious is that sea level isn't going to suddenly begin to rise twice
as fast as it has over the last several centuries.

You know it, I know it, and Threegoofs knows it.

Maybe if you read the relevant section of the IPCC, you’ll get your answer. It’s painfully obvious that you either haven’t read it, or have not even a basic understanding of it.
 
Maybe if you read the relevant section of the IPCC, you’ll get your answer. It’s painfully obvious that you either haven’t read it, or have not even a basic understanding of it.

The West Side Highway remains dry.
 
No- it was an offhand comment in a radio interview from 20 years ago!

But I do understand that that’s pretty much all you’ve got.

Well, no. It was his reply to an interview question by an author, who included it in his book.

Bob Reiss, The Coming Storm, 2001, page 31. The interview took place in 1988.
 
Last edited:
Well, no. It was his reply to an interview question by an author, who included it in his book.

Bob Reiss, The Coming Storm, 2001, page 31. The interview took place in 1988.

Right. It was an offhand comment, like I said.

And stuff like that is about your strongest argument, which should tell you something if you were an honest man.
 
Right. It was an offhand comment, like I said.

And stuff like that is about your strongest argument, which should tell you something if you were an honest man.

It was the opposite of "off hand." It was his considered response to an interview question.
 
Back
Top Bottom