• 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!

The Weather Gods Smite the USA for Donald Trump's Sins

code1211 said:
"Oct. 7, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum"

Your main point seems to be that the actions of man have created conditions that will melt the Antarctic Ice Cap and this is simply not supported by real world facts.

In the real world, the greatest ice extent ever recorded in the Antarctic occurred in 2014. It may be only weather and not climate. Any one year is usually considered only weather.
Click to expand...

Not only were you wrong about 2017, but I have to wonder why you chose to look at sea ice in the first place. Did you not realize that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise?

Or were you simply uncomfortable talking about the actual land ice sheets and hoping no-one would notice?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

They attribute the threefold increase in ice loss from the continent since 2012 to a combination of increased rates of ice melt in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, and reduced growth of the East Antarctic ice sheet.

Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise. Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes) – equivalent to about 0.02 inches per year (0.6 millimeters) of sea level rise.​

Ironically, this issue seems to have made headlines just yesterday.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...could-stop-catastrophic-sea-level-rise-2018-9

If the the glaciers holding back ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland were to collapse, sea level rise rates around the globe would skyrocket.

This would quickly render the coastal cities where hundreds of millions of people live uninhabitable.

To prevent this, scientists are proposing a new kind of geoengineering plan to prop up the ice sheets with mounds or walls underneath.

These would be the biggest civil engineering projects in human history. . . .


This sort of “ice sheet intervention today would be at the edge of human capabilities,” the authors wrote in the study. But it’s possible that catastrophic ice sheet collapse could happen in the foreseeable future, and the processes that could trigger it at the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica — one of the most vulnerable glaciers — could already be happening.

“Thwaites could easily trigger a runaway [West Antarctic] ice sheet collapse that would ultimately raise global sea level by about 3 metres,” Michael Wolovick, a geosciences researcher at Princeton and the other author of the study, said in a statement.​

This particularly sensational proposal might be as much theoretical/publicity work as anything - perhaps - but "rapid, dynamical change" (as the last IPCC report called it) has always been the biggest plausible concern from Antarctica.
 
Mithrae said:
Not only were you wrong about 2017, but I have to wonder why you chose to look at sea ice in the first place. Did you not realize that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise?

Or were you simply uncomfortable talking about the actual land ice sheets and hoping no-one would notice?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

They attribute the threefold increase in ice loss from the continent since 2012 to a combination of increased rates of ice melt in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, and reduced growth of the East Antarctic ice sheet.

Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise. Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes) – equivalent to about 0.02 inches per year (0.6 millimeters) of sea level rise.​

Ironically, this issue seems to have made headlines just yesterday.

Click to expand...


I don't see such a conclusion in the paper. Please quote the part that supports the NASA claim.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0212-1​
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't see such a conclusion in the paper. Please quote the part that supports the NASA claim.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0212-1
Click to expand...

What are you getting at here? Do you think that NASA is lying to us? A conspiracy so simplistic that any random person on the internet can call them out on it?

Well... uh...

Man, I really hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but it might help if you looked at the right article :roll: I know you claim to have a journal subscription and all, but it kinda looks like you've just googled any old random Nature article about Antarctica from that month. Whereas if you'd simply gone to the IMBIE page (there's a link to it in the text) and gone to their publications page, you would have found the right one easily. It's even free to access.
imbie.org

I don't particularly enjoy pointing out these amazingly obvious blunders you guys make. Well actually that's a lie, I do enjoy it, but only because you're making these blunders in the course of such ridiculous, conspiracy-style thinking that it seems like a form of poetic justice, or an extra level of proof about the kind of selective 'intelligence' running rampant among contrarians. I mean we all make little mistakes at times (for example in my previous post I meant that Code was wrong about 2018, not 2017), but when you're stepping onto the path of saying that NASA isn't a good enough scientific source for you, surely it would make sense to be extra careful about where you're treading? Instead you've seemingly just googled up some random article...
 
Mithrae said:
Not only were you wrong about 2017, but I have to wonder why you chose to look at sea ice in the first place. Did you not realize that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise?

Or were you simply uncomfortable talking about the actual land ice sheets and hoping no-one would notice?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

They attribute the threefold increase in ice loss from the continent since 2012 to a combination of increased rates of ice melt in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, and reduced growth of the East Antarctic ice sheet.

Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise. Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes) – equivalent to about 0.02 inches per year (0.6 millimeters) of sea level rise.​

Ironically, this issue seems to have made headlines just yesterday.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...could-stop-catastrophic-sea-level-rise-2018-9

If the the glaciers holding back ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland were to collapse, sea level rise rates around the globe would skyrocket.

This would quickly render the coastal cities where hundreds of millions of people live uninhabitable.

To prevent this, scientists are proposing a new kind of geoengineering plan to prop up the ice sheets with mounds or walls underneath.

These would be the biggest civil engineering projects in human history. . . .


This sort of “ice sheet intervention today would be at the edge of human capabilities,” the authors wrote in the study. But it’s possible that catastrophic ice sheet collapse could happen in the foreseeable future, and the processes that could trigger it at the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica — one of the most vulnerable glaciers — could already be happening.

“Thwaites could easily trigger a runaway [West Antarctic] ice sheet collapse that would ultimately raise global sea level by about 3 metres,” Michael Wolovick, a geosciences researcher at Princeton and the other author of the study, said in a statement.​

This particularly sensational proposal might be as much theoretical/publicity work as anything - perhaps - but "rapid, dynamical change" (as the last IPCC report called it) has always been the biggest plausible concern from Antarctica.
Click to expand...

The reason I "looked at sea ice" was that the poster indicated that the Antarctic Ice Cap was melting and would soon be gone raising the sea level. He also seemed to be predicting a dire consequence.

A prediction of dire consequence seems to be included in much of what the Climate Change alarmists like to proclaim.

A three fold increase in ice loss to 0.02 inches per year of seal level rise? My God! Run for the hills. Well, walk for the hills. Well maybe think about starting to wonder about where a hill might be. After you think about it for about, say, 40 years, then sell the beach house and add that cash to your retirement planning.

In the link I presented from NASA in an earlier post, NASA indicated that ice Extent was at its all time high in 2014. I think it was 2014...

Are we to expect that soon the ice extent will be reaching greater extents in given years with lesser extents in others but be only paper thin across the continent? Is the freezing point of water dropping in at the South Pole?

C'mon, man! None of this "The end is nigh" crap makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
What are you getting at here? Do you think that NASA is lying to us? A conspiracy so simplistic that any random person on the internet can call them out on it?

Well... uh...

Man, I really hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but it might help if you looked at the right article :roll: I know you claim to have a journal subscription and all, but it kinda looks like you've just googled any old random Nature article about Antarctica from that month. Whereas if you'd simply gone to the IMBIE page (there's a link to it in the text) and gone to their publications page, you would have found the right one easily. It's even free to access.
imbie.org

I don't particularly enjoy pointing out these amazingly obvious blunders you guys make. Well actually that's a lie, I do enjoy it, but only because you're making these blunders in the course of such ridiculous, conspiracy-style thinking that it seems like a form of poetic justice, or an extra level of proof about the kind of selective 'intelligence' running rampant among contrarians. I mean we all make little mistakes at times (for example in my previous post I meant that Code was wrong about 2018, not 2017), but when you're stepping onto the path of saying that NASA isn't a good enough scientific source for you, surely it would make sense to be extra careful about where you're treading? Instead you've seemingly just googled up some random article...
Click to expand...

The NASA article, which doesn't even link or footnote the specific study, says in the beginning:

According to the study, ice losses from Antarctica are causing sea levels to rise faster today than at any time in the past 25 years. Results of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) were published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
​

They claim this as a conclusion, when all the study does is claim statistics from modeling, and with a rather wide margin of error.

Now I purposely picked and linked the wrong study, to see if someone would actually find the correct one.

NASA when it comes to the climate sciences, has lost credibility. They do not properly portray the works of studies. Read the study, and please tell me where it "concludes."
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
The reason I "looked at sea ice" was that the poster indicated that the Antarctic Ice Cap was melting and would soon be gone raising the sea level. He also seemed to be predicting a dire consequence.
Click to expand...

So you still don't understand that sea ice extent has no effect on sea level? Here's an experiment you can try at home: Fill a glass 3/4 full of water, add some ice cubes on top, then watch the water level as they melt. I'm willing to bet that it's not going to change ;) Sea ice extent is irrelevant to the question of sea level rise, so your choice to bring it up suggests only your lack of understanding.

code1211 said:
A three fold increase in ice loss to 0.02 inches per year of seal level rise? My God! Run for the hills. Well, walk for the hills. Well maybe think about starting to wonder about where a hill might be. After you think about it for about, say, 40 years, then sell the beach house and add that cash to your retirement planning.
Click to expand...

Evidently you've never heard of glacial calving either. How disappointing. A threefold increase in the loss of Antarctica's ice mass is disturbing enough in itself - suggesting that sea level rise may be near the higher end of the IPCC's range (up to 83cm by 2100) - but that is with limited accounting for rapid dynamical change. As the Princeton researcher quoted in my second link suggested, "it’s possible that catastrophic ice sheet collapse could happen in the foreseeable future, and the processes that could trigger it at the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica — one of the most vulnerable glaciers — could already be happening. Thwaites could easily trigger a runaway [West Antarctic] ice sheet collapse that would ultimately raise global sea level by about 3 metres."

code1211 said:
C'mon, man! None of this "The end is nigh" crap makes sense.
Click to expand...

Given your demonstrated lack of understanding in this area, I'm not sure that you're in any real position to make that assessment. I myself have often thought that the undue focus on sea level rise is not the most immediately troubling issue, and various scary images showing what would happen to New York with a 20 foot sea level increase border on outright dishonesty. But even if there were only a one in five chance of that 3m sea level increase occurring, and even if it were only in the next century, would that make it okay to simply pass such a major risk onto our descendants? You may sleep well knowing that your beach house is probably safe for the next forty years, believing that the end is not "nigh," but this is a major (and potentially very serious) longer-term issue. Cities aren't built to last half a century, and over a third of the world's population live on the coast.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Now I purposely picked and linked the wrong study, to see if someone would actually find the correct one.

NASA when it comes to the climate sciences, has lost credibility. They do not properly portray the works of studies. Read the study, and please tell me where it "concludes."
Click to expand...

Sure you did :lol: I think it's safe to say that you have lost far more credibility (and had far less to begin with) than NASA ever will.

41586_2018_179_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Fig. 2 | Cumulative Antarctic Ice Sheet mass change. The cumulative ice-sheet mass changes (solid lines) are determined from the integral of monthly measurement-class averages (for example, the black lines in Fig.1) for each ice sheet. The estimated 1σ uncertainty of the cumulative change is shaded. The dashed lines show the results of a previous assessment
 
Mithrae said:
Sure you did :lol: I think it's safe to say that you have lost far more credibility (and had far less to begin with) than NASA ever will.

41586_2018_179_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Fig. 2 | Cumulative Antarctic Ice Sheet mass change. The cumulative ice-sheet mass changes (solid lines) are determined from the integral of monthly measurement-class averages (for example, the black lines in Fig.1) for each ice sheet. The estimated 1σ uncertainty of the cumulative change is shaded. The dashed lines show the results of a previous assessment
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't understand why I say what I do. I often point out possibilities that are ignored. I rarely take a solid position. Your interpretation is in error if you think I have lost credibility.

Care to give a specific example?
 
Mithrae said:
So you still don't understand that sea ice extent has no effect on sea level? Here's an experiment you can try at home: Fill a glass 3/4 full of water, add some ice cubes on top, then watch the water level as they melt. I'm willing to bet that it's not going to change ;) Sea ice extent is irrelevant to the question of sea level rise, so your choice to bring it up suggests only your lack of understanding.



Evidently you've never heard of glacial calving either. How disappointing. A threefold increase in the loss of Antarctica's ice mass is disturbing enough in itself - suggesting that sea level rise may be near the higher end of the IPCC's range (up to 83cm by 2100) - but that is with limited accounting for rapid dynamical change. As the Princeton researcher quoted in my second link suggested, "it’s possible that catastrophic ice sheet collapse could happen in the foreseeable future, and the processes that could trigger it at the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica — one of the most vulnerable glaciers — could already be happening. Thwaites could easily trigger a runaway [West Antarctic] ice sheet collapse that would ultimately raise global sea level by about 3 metres."



Given your demonstrated lack of understanding in this area, I'm not sure that you're in any real position to make that assessment. I myself have often thought that the undue focus on sea level rise is not the most immediately troubling issue, and various scary images showing what would happen to New York with a 20 foot sea level increase border on outright dishonesty. But even if there were only a one in five chance of that 3m sea level increase occurring, and even if it were only in the next century, would that make it okay to simply pass such a major risk onto our descendants? You may sleep well knowing that your beach house is probably safe for the next forty years, believing that the end is not "nigh," but this is a major (and potentially very serious) longer-term issue. Cities aren't built to last half a century, and over a third of the world's population live on the coast.
Click to expand...

Even if there is a 3 meter sea level increase in the next century?

Can you link to a non-drug induced prediction that indicates this will happen?
 
code1211 said:
Even if there is a 3 meter sea level increase in the next century?

Can you link to a non-drug induced prediction that indicates this will happen?
Click to expand...

Buck Rogers might see it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Buck Rogers might see it.
Click to expand...

How many time do we need to run around this bush? All of the minutia thrown against all of the walls will never change the facts on the ground.

The predictions of dire consequence are just not happening to the degree(s) predicted by those spreading the alarm.

Climate is changing. It has been changing, as I see things, for several billion years. I see no reason that it should stop changing now.
 
LowDown said:
Florence rolls into South Carolina and Donald Trump is partly to blame, according to the Washington Post.

But nothing that Trump has done or proposes to do will have any significant effect on the climate or the weather.

Since Trump isn't with the CAGW agenda then he's held to blame for any adverse weather events, never mind that there's no evidence of any connection between what Trump does and what happens with the weather.

In fact, nothing that has been proposed by any person or nation to address global warming that is actually politically and financially feasible will do anything significant to change the climate.

It's just magical thinking. It certainly isn't science.
Click to expand...

I disagree

I know people that blame Trump for....

their dandruff
milk going sour
flat tires
crappy weather
Busted thumbs
Stubbed toes
upset stomach
their hemorrhoids
loosing their job
the other guy getting their job

These are all scientific facts. Just ask them.

Between 2008 and 2016 these same things were all Obama's fault.
Look it up, it's true.:shock:
 
code1211 said:
Even if there is a 3 meter sea level increase in the next century?

Can you link to a non-drug induced prediction that indicates this will happen?
Click to expand...

Not very subtle about dodging the question are you. I asked whether we should simply ignore it even under the assumption that it could be merely a modest risk for future generations, but evidently you don't want to answer that.

I already showed one study suggesting that distinct possibility, but it's hardly the only one. This isn't some far-fetched fantasy stuff: During the previous interglacial (Eemian) period global average temperatures were only about 1 degree warmer than today, if that, while sea levels were 6-9 meters higher. If we continue our current warming trend, the question is not so much will there be multi-meter sea level increases, only how quickly it will happen. During the most recent deglaciation, on at least one occasion sea levels are known to have increased by 4-6 meters per year (12-25 meters in 300–500 years), with substantial contributions coming from Antarctica. See for example Deschamps et al 2012.

In seeking to better understand prehistoric sea level changes and ice sheet dynamics Pollard, DeConto and Alley (2015) reached some surprising conclusions:
In response to atmospheric and ocean temperatures typical of past warm periods, floating ice shelves may be drastically reduced or removed completely by increased oceanic melting, and by hydrofracturing due to surface melt draining into crevasses. Ice at deep grounding lines may be weakened by hydrofracturing and reduced buttressing, and may fail structurally if stresses exceed the ice yield strength, producing rapid retreat. Incorporating these mechanisms in our ice-sheet model accelerates the expected collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to decadal time scales, and also causes retreat into major East Antarctic subglacial basins, producing ∼17 m global sea-level rise within a few thousand years. The mechanisms are highly parameterized and should be tested by further process studies. But if accurate, they offer one explanation for past sea-level high stands, and suggest that Antarctica may be more vulnerable to warm climates than in most previous studies. . . .


The main aim of adding hydrofracturing and cliff failure was to produce total Antarctic retreat consistent with albeit poorly constrained past sea-level data, and no effort was made to adjust the rate of retreat. The time scale that emerges for West Antarctic collapse (~3m contribution to global sea-level rise within O(100) years after a step-function warming) is an order of magnitude faster than previous estimates for the next century, which range from ∼0.1 to 0.6 m by 2100 AD (Pfeffer et al., 2008, Levermann et al., 2014, Joughin et al., 2014). The modeling approaches in Pfeffer et al. and Levermann et al. are very different, and our study is not directly applicable to the future because of our step-function climate change, Pliocene-like climate, and homogeneous ocean warming. But even so, our predicted WAIS retreat rates are much faster than might be expected from the previous work. The main cause is the new mechanisms of hydrofracture and cliff failure.​

A study by nineteen authors was published in 2016 - after eight months of open peer review/discussion - seeking to apply more recent developments such as Pollard et al's to future climate change (Hansen et al 2016, Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms):
These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1◦C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and on-going observations together imply that 2◦C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years.​
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Not very subtle about dodging the question are you. I asked whether we should simply ignore it even under the assumption that it could be merely a modest risk for future generations, but evidently you don't want to answer that.

I already showed one study suggesting that distinct possibility, but it's hardly the only one. This isn't some far-fetched fantasy stuff: During the previous interglacial (Eemian) period global average temperatures were only about 1 degree warmer than today, if that, while sea levels were 6-9 meters higher. If we continue our current warming trend, the question is not so much will there be multi-meter sea level increases, only how quickly it will happen. During the most recent deglaciation, on at least one occasion sea levels are known to have increased by 4-6 meters per year (12-25 meters in 300–500 years), with substantial contributions coming from Antarctica. See for example Deschamps et al 2012.

In seeking to better understand prehistoric sea level changes and ice sheet dynamics Pollard, DeConto and Alley (2015) reached some surprising conclusions:
In response to atmospheric and ocean temperatures typical of past warm periods, floating ice shelves may be drastically reduced or removed completely by increased oceanic melting, and by hydrofracturing due to surface melt draining into crevasses. Ice at deep grounding lines may be weakened by hydrofracturing and reduced buttressing, and may fail structurally if stresses exceed the ice yield strength, producing rapid retreat. Incorporating these mechanisms in our ice-sheet model accelerates the expected collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to decadal time scales, and also causes retreat into major East Antarctic subglacial basins, producing ∼17 m global sea-level rise within a few thousand years. The mechanisms are highly parameterized and should be tested by further process studies. But if accurate, they offer one explanation for past sea-level high stands, and suggest that Antarctica may be more vulnerable to warm climates than in most previous studies. . . .


The main aim of adding hydrofracturing and cliff failure was to produce total Antarctic retreat consistent with albeit poorly constrained past sea-level data, and no effort was made to adjust the rate of retreat. The time scale that emerges for West Antarctic collapse (~3m contribution to global sea-level rise within O(100) years after a step-function warming) is an order of magnitude faster than previous estimates for the next century, which range from ∼0.1 to 0.6 m by 2100 AD (Pfeffer et al., 2008, Levermann et al., 2014, Joughin et al., 2014). The modeling approaches in Pfeffer et al. and Levermann et al. are very different, and our study is not directly applicable to the future because of our step-function climate change, Pliocene-like climate, and homogeneous ocean warming. But even so, our predicted WAIS retreat rates are much faster than might be expected from the previous work. The main cause is the new mechanisms of hydrofracture and cliff failure.​

A study by nineteen authors was published in 2016 - after eight months of open peer review/discussion - seeking to apply more recent developments such as Pollard et al's to future climate change (Hansen et al 2016, Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms):
These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1◦C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and on-going observations together imply that 2◦C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years.​
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of words.

You said 3 meters of sea level rise in 100 years.

That is a fantasy unrelated to reality.

https://www.livescience.com/25097-sea-levels-rising-faster-ipcc.html
 
code1211 said:
That's a whole lot of words.

You said 3 meters of sea level rise in 100 years.

That is a fantasy unrelated to reality.

https://www.livescience.com/25097-sea-levels-rising-faster-ipcc.html
Click to expand...

- One degree warmer had sea levels 6-9 meters higher during the Eemian
- They've been known to increase by 4-6 meters per century in the past
- I've so far shown three scientific papers suggesting it's a plausible prospect for this century

...but Code doesn't like it, so he'll just dodge and duck all questions and assert his contrary opinion 'til he's blue in the face. You should post this in my "science deniers" thread - it seems to have been seized as a chance for folk to put their worst stuff forward.
 
Mithrae said:
- One degree warmer had sea levels 6-9 meters higher during the Eemian
- They've been known to increase by 4-6 meters per century in the past
- I've so far shown three scientific papers suggesting it's a plausible prospect for this century

...but Code doesn't like it, so he'll just dodge and duck all questions and assert his contrary opinion 'til he's blue in the face. You should post this in my "science deniers" thread - it seems to have been seized as a chance for folk to put their worst stuff forward.
Click to expand...

Code likes the real world which seems to escape your notice in "evidence" that you present.

The current rate of sea level rise would require just under a 1000 years to produce the amount of sea level rise you predict as something we might expect to occur over the next 100 years.

What happened in a previous epoch is not really relevant to the real world today. What was the sea level rise during the dawn of the last ice age? Why not post that also?

What you posted is a fantasy unrelated to reality in today's world.

In the real world and in historical context, here is sea level change recently:



Seems to have slowed pretty dramatically in the last couple thousand years.
 
Mithrae said:
- One degree warmer had sea levels 6-9 meters higher during the Eemian
- They've been known to increase by 4-6 meters per century in the past
- I've so far shown three scientific papers suggesting it's a plausible prospect for this century

...but Code doesn't like it, so he'll just dodge and duck all questions and assert his contrary opinion 'til he's blue in the face. You should post this in my "science deniers" thread - it seems to have been seized as a chance for folk to put their worst stuff forward.
Click to expand...

You would have to assume similar variable changes, which I see no merit for.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You would have to assume similar variable changes, which I see no merit for.
Click to expand...

Not even on your most recent Antarctic expedition? Weird. Seems the other experts who went there noticed something, but I guess we can trust you over them :doh

Maybe you can answer the question that Code is so desperate to avoid, since you're here: For the sake of argument, let's assume that such a rapid and imminent increase is indeed improbable. Let's say that there's only a one in five chance of it occurring at all, and furthermore that it will only be in the next century even then. So we, personally, can rest easy in our beachfront homes knowing that the end is not "nigh," as Code put it.

Does that mean that we should simply not worry about it at all - that we should just leave our descendants with that risk of a 3m or 5m sea level rise? Sea level rise is uncertain, but we can be certain that they'll have flying cities by then, perhaps?
 
Mithrae said:
Not even on your most recent Antarctic expedition? Weird. Seems the other experts who went there noticed something, but I guess we can trust you over them :doh

Maybe you can answer the question that Code is so desperate to avoid, since you're here: For the sake of argument, let's assume that such a rapid and imminent increase is indeed improbable. Let's say that there's only a one in five chance of it occurring at all, and furthermore that it will only be in the next century even then. So we, personally, can rest easy in our beachfront homes knowing that the end is not "nigh," as Code put it.

Does that mean that we should simply not worry about it at all - that we should just leave our descendants with that risk of a 3m or 5m sea level rise? Sea level rise is uncertain, but we can be certain that they'll have flying cities by then, perhaps?
Click to expand...

One thing we should not do is use a spurious forecast to poison the debate with fear.
 
Jack Hays said:
One thing we should not do is use a spurious forecast to poison the debate with fear.
Click to expand...

- One degree warmer had sea levels 6-9 meters higher during the Eemian
- They've been known to increase by 4-6 meters per century in the past
- I've so far shown three scientific papers suggesting it's a plausible prospect for this century

But Jack doesn't like it, so... well, to my astonishment and your credit, you've at least asserted your own opinion even if it is utterly devoid of evidence or reason :lol:
 
Mithrae said:
- One degree warmer had sea levels 6-9 meters higher during the Eemian
- They've been known to increase by 4-6 meters per century in the past
- I've so far shown three scientific papers suggesting it's a plausible prospect for this century

But Jack doesn't like it, so... well, to my astonishment and your credit, you've at least asserted your own opinion even if it is utterly devoid of evidence or reason :lol:
Click to expand...


Sea Level Speculation Irresponsibly Threatens Property Owners

By Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism Pacifica California, just south of San Francisco, is my adopted hometown of 25 years. It has garnered national attention as an icon of dangerous sea level rise as eroding cliffs…

3 days ago September 26, 2018 in Sea level.

[FONT=&quot]". . . I have argued at every meeting that a 3- to 10-foot sea level rise is based only on the most extreme untested speculation. At the very least Pacifica can wait 20 years to test the validity of these extreme sea level rise hypotheses before enacting policy. Scientific American accurately reported, “Some of the climate change exaggerations of 3 feet of sea-level rise is equal to fearmongering,” stated Jim Steele, with the Community Working Group on Sea Level Rise in Pacifica,” then continuing my comments, “sea level has risen about 8 inches over the last century, a rate of about 2 millimeters a year. If that rate continued, it would take 144 years to rise just 1 foot.” What reporters failed to mention is I also stated from 1980 to 2014 there has been absolutely no rising sea level trend for San Francisco (as well as the west coast of the Americas) as seen in graph below. However, I suspect changing winds associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, California’s sea level rise will revert back to 2 mm/year and perhaps increase to 3 mm/year over the next 2 decades.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Mithrae said:
Not even on your most recent Antarctic expedition? Weird. Seems the other experts who went there noticed something, but I guess we can trust you over them :doh

Maybe you can answer the question that Code is so desperate to avoid, since you're here: For the sake of argument, let's assume that such a rapid and imminent increase is indeed improbable. Let's say that there's only a one in five chance of it occurring at all, and furthermore that it will only be in the next century even then. So we, personally, can rest easy in our beachfront homes knowing that the end is not "nigh," as Code put it.

Does that mean that we should simply not worry about it at all - that we should just leave our descendants with that risk of a 3m or 5m sea level rise? Sea level rise is uncertain, but we can be certain that they'll have flying cities by then, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
 
Jack Hays said:
One thing we should not do is use a spurious forecast to poison the debate with fear.
Click to expand...

The Church of Global Warming must use fear to justify their religion. It is the only thing they have to justify someone to join their religion or to 'do something about the threat'.

It is a fallacy, obviously.
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientific American accurately reported, “Some of the climate change exaggerations of 3 feet of sea-level rise is equal to fearmongering,” stated Jim Steele, with the Community Working Group on Sea Level Rise in Pacifica,” then continuing my comments, “sea level has risen about 8 inches over the last century, a rate of about 2 millimeters a year. If that rate continued, it would take 144 years to rise just 1 foot.”
Click to expand...

Global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees over the last forty years (RSS), a rate of about 0.2 degrees per decade. If that rate continued, we'll be 2.4 degrees above mid 20th century levels by 2100.

Can I safely assume that you, LoP, Code and so on all agree with that assessment, since generalizing recent trends into the distant future without regard for physical processes and causes is the one and only 'argument' that any of you have offered on which to base your absolute certainty regarding sea level rise?



As a point of interest, one of the original sources for the document cited in the Scientific American article (Kopp et al 2014) suggests that under the business as usual/current trajectory RCP 8.5 there's a 17% probability of having at least 2.8m of sea level rise by 2200 (Table 1), so the figures in my hypothetical question were coincidentally quite close to the mark. Their 50th percentile estimate under business as usual is 2m by 2200.

Meanwhile, there remain low probabilities of multi-meter sea level rise by the end of this century:
A few examples include reliance on structured expert elicitation of potential ice-melt contributions not captured in the process models (Bamber and Aspinall, 2013) or from geologic evidence comparing past sea levels and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Rohling et al., 2013) or temperature (Kopp et al., 2016a). Under such frameworks, estimates of high-end GMSL rise by 2100 under RCP8.5 include ~1.8 m [95th percentile] (Jevrejeva et al., 2014, Rohling et al., 2013 and Grinsted et al., 2015), ~2.2 m [99th percentile] (Jackson and Jevrejeva, 2016), and ~2.5 m [99.9th percentile] (Kopp et al., 2014).​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom