A way to convince the deniers

Tim the plumber · Mar 20, 2020

longview said:
So you still cannot cite this supposed study that projects a 20 foot sea level rise by year 2100.
Without the study, there is no way to tell if the scenario used is even plausible, or if that is what their prediction was!

We all know that there is no possible way any such sea level rise is at all possible without a massive asteroid strike so don't hold your breath.

longview · Mar 20, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
We all know that there is no possible way any such sea level rise is at all possible without a massive asteroid strike so don't hold your breath.

I am thinking that one study, stated that a 20 foot increase was possible at some undetermined point in the future,
based on past sea levels. It looks like the actual studies peak out at about 2.5 meters by 2100, but even those
are a 0.1% possibility.

Tim the plumber · Mar 20, 2020

longview said:
I am thinking that one study, stated that a 20 foot increase was possible at some undetermined point in the future,
based on past sea levels. It looks like the actual studies peak out at about 2.5 meters by 2100, but even those
are a 0.1% possibility.

And we all know that they are equally impossible. Just drawing lines on a map and hoping. No mechanism.

Lord of Planar · Mar 20, 2020

longview said:
So you still cannot cite this supposed study that projects a 20 foot sea level rise by year 2100.
Without the study, there is no way to tell if the scenario used is even plausible, or if that is what their prediction was!

They just believe the dogma and deny the science.

A 20 ft rise would be a 0.006098 kilometer rise.

The ocean has an area of 361 million square kilometers.

This would require an increased ocean volume of 2.20 million cubic kilometers or 2.20 million gigatons of ice melting.

Divide by 80 years, means around 100 times the net ice loss as estimated by some of their alarmist material today, or 27,500 gigatons annually. I believe they like to use something like 280 gigatons annually.

Did someone crashed a Mars probe? Just looking at my spreadsheet, 20 ft. is 240 inches. 3mm annually for 80 years is 240 mm. It looks like someone didn't look at the units of measurement correctly.

I wonder which of their holy bloggers made that mistake?

Lord of Planar · Mar 20, 2020

longview said:
I am thinking that one study, stated that a 20 foot increase was possible at some undetermined point in the future,
based on past sea levels. It looks like the actual studies peak out at about 2.5 meters by 2100, but even those
are a 0.1% possibility.

That still means over 900 thousand gigatons of melt, averaging over 11,300 gigatons annually.

The heat required is enormous to melt that much ice. 333.55 joules per gram, at zero degrees Celsius. A joule is 1 watt-second.

vegas giants · Mar 20, 2020

Lord of Planar said:
That still means over 900 thousand gigatons of melt, averaging over 11,300 gigatons annually.

The heat required is enormous to melt that much ice. 333.55 joules per gram, at zero degrees Celsius. A joule is 1 watt-second.

You know most sea level rise comes from warm water expansion.....dont you? Lol

longview · Mar 20, 2020

Lord of Planar said:
That still means over 900 thousand gigatons of melt, averaging over 11,300 gigatons annually.

The heat required is enormous to melt that much ice. 333.55 joules per gram, at zero degrees Celsius. A joule is 1 watt-second.

Without a time frame attached, the 20 feet means nothing!

bluesmoke · Mar 20, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
You can look at the the fact that there are a lot of sea defenses built today without much in the way of the builders panicing because they will find it hard to do.

For those of us who are the sort who do stuff building a concrete wall is not that demanding.

Builders won’t panic regardless of the difficulty level. You said it would be “easy”. I didn’t say that it could be so difficult as to cause builder panic. The sea defense you say to look at are nothing compared to the scope, being the structural requirement (if you need a 6’ wall, you don’t just build a wall 6’ from ground up) and how many, that would be necessary to build in expectation of what the sea level rise will be in 2100. And, no, we don’t have 80 yrs to build. You see, sea level rise is gradual. What may be 3 ft. in 80 yrs could be 1.5 ft in 40 yrs or could change based on any acceleration in sea level rise. The given sea wall would have to be well over 3’ high. There’s what’s called tidal and storm surge that could add many more feet that certain areas are most susceptible to once the sea level gets to a certain point and topography determines where those stress points are.

I can tell you’re not willing to take the time and do the research necessary to support your flaccid claim that the sea wall would be “easy” to build. Your claim, for lack of evidence, is unfounded and need not be debated by me any further. Unless you can actually do your homework and come up with facts to support what you say, don’t expect any further reply to what you post on this matter.

Lord of Planar · Mar 20, 2020

vegas giants said:
You know most sea level rise comes from warm water expansion.....dont you? Lol

Around half of what we see of the approximate 3mm annual rise.

How about showing us the math that will get us there please. If melting gives us 5 mm for 80 years, that's 16 inches of the 20 ft.

Care to show us how much heat the ocean must absorb to cause the remaining 18' 8"?

Are you even capable of doing such math?

The fact that you mentioned it, indicates you have absolutely no grasp of the magnitude.

You continually think you are smarter than all us skeptics, but keep pointing out what is very, very obvious to those of us who actually understand the sciences.

Tim the plumber · Mar 20, 2020

bluesmoke said:
Builders won’t panic regardless of the difficulty level. You said it would be “easy”. I didn’t say that it could be so difficult as to cause builder panic. The sea defense you say to look at are nothing compared to the scope, being the structural requirement (if you need a 6’ wall, you don’t just build a wall 6’ from ground up) and how many, that would be necessary to build in expectation of what the sea level rise will be in 2100. And, no, we don’t have 80 yrs to build. You see, sea level rise is gradual. What may be 3 ft. in 80 yrs could be 1.5 ft in 40 yrs or could change based on any acceleration in sea level rise. The given sea wall would have to be well over 3’ high. There’s what’s called tidal and storm surge that could add many more feet that certain areas are most susceptible to once the sea level gets to a certain point and topography determines where those stress points are.

I can tell you’re not willing to take the time and do the research necessary to support your flaccid claim that the sea wall would be “easy” to build. Your claim, for lack of evidence, is unfounded and need not be debated by me any further. Unless you can actually do your homework and come up with facts to support what you say, don’t expect any further reply to what you post on this matter.

The tidal range will be just the same in the future. If you have any decent science that shows some sort of mechanism for increased storms then we can look at it. Some "model" that fails to predict the weathere 3 weeks into the future is not going to be convincing though.

The existing sea walls will not be there in 80 years. Yes, they need to be rebuilt ever 30-40 years. They need to be massive things that do indeed go down deep into the ground. This is already done.

The extra will be very cheap and easy.

vegas giants · Mar 20, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
The tidal range will be just the same in the future. If you have any decent science that shows some sort of mechanism for increased storms then we can look at it. Some "model" that fails to predict the weathere 3 weeks into the future is not going to be convincing though.

The existing sea walls will not be there in 80 years. Yes, they need to be rebuilt ever 30-40 years. They need to be massive things that do indeed go down deep into the ground. This is already done.

The extra will be very cheap and easy.

10 billion for NYC alone

bluesmoke · Mar 20, 2020

vegas giants said:
10 billion for just one city. The cost is massive

NYC mayor has a $10 billion plan to protect Manhattan from rising seas - The Verge

It's not like a global sea rise of 3' in 80 yrs needs a 3' wall where there was none before. Tidal and storm surge, topography, some regions (like Manhattan) expecting more than 3' etc. Just, say, a 5' wall would need (though I'm no engineer) another 10' underground. I'd like to see some of the structural engineering on what these walls need to be and cost per lineal ft of various height. Thanks for the link.

vegas giants · Mar 20, 2020

bluesmoke said:
It's not like a global sea rise of 3' in 80 yrs needs a 3' wall where there was none before. Tidal and storm surge, topography, some regions (like Manhattan) expecting more than 3' etc. Just, say, a 5' wall would need (though I'm no engineer) another 10' underground. I'd like to see some of the structural engineering on what these walls need to be and cost per lineal ft of various height. Thanks for the link.

New york has to create land in lower Manhattan just to do this. Very expensive

code1211 · Mar 21, 2020

vegas giants said:
Ahhhhhh newspeak. War is peace. Truth is lies. Agreement is disagreement.

Now I get it

You claim to understand, but you still read "DISagreement" as "agreement". For example:

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong << Roy Spencer, PhD

90 predictions based on Anthropogenic Warming "Science" Modeling disagree with each other.

One seems to be almost accurate. Two seem to be a little low, by maybe 10% or so.

All of the others, about 95% of them, predict warming that is too warm. These pretenders are paid to do this. For their daily bread they err in a range between about 5% and about 130% too warm and, obviously, incorrect.

In fairness, though, the Climastrologers can't even agree on what they are observing the global temperature to be.

They start using data that they adjust, average and homogenize, adjust it again using different methods to average it further using different procedures and publish the DISagreeing results.

Only Anthropogenic "Science" could analyze this DISagreement in prediction, methodology and observation and find agreement in it. Can you believe that there are this that think this indicates agreement?

In any other field of science, these clowns would be laughed out of their profession, stripped of their credentials and left to find work in the foodservice or building maintenance trades.

In the field of AGW "Science", they are given additional grants and allowed to work without proper hair restraint.

What's wrong with this picture?

vegas giants · Mar 21, 2020

code1211 said:
You claim to understand, but you still read "DISagreement" as "agreement". For example:

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong << Roy Spencer, PhD

90 predictions based on Anthropogenic Warming "Science" Modeling disagree with each other.

One seems to be almost accurate. Two seem to be a little low, by maybe 10% or so.

All of the others, about 95% of them, predict warming that is too warm. These pretenders are paid to do this. For their daily bread they err in a range between about 5% and about 130% too warm and, obviously, incorrect.

In fairness, though, the Climastrologers can't even agree on what they are observing the global temperature to be.

They start using data that they adjust, average and homogenize, adjust it again using different methods to average it further using different procedures and publish the DISagreeing results.

Only Anthropogenic "Science" could analyze this DISagreement in prediction, methodology and observation and find agreement in it. Can you believe that there are this that think this indicates agreement?

In any other field of science, these clowns would be laughed out of their profession, stripped of their credentials and left to find work in the foodservice or building maintenance trades.

In the field of AGW "Science", they are given additional grants and allowed to work without proper hair restraint.

What's wrong with this picture?

It sounds like old Roy has an opinion. Well good for him. Let's see how many science agencies agree with him.

Name them. Lol

Pro tip
Never form your scientific opinions from one study or one sciebtist.

marke · Mar 21, 2020

vegas giants said:
It sounds like old Roy has an opinion. Well good for him. Let's see how many science agencies agree with him.

Name them. Lol

Pro tip
Never form your scientific opinions from one study or one sciebtist.

Look at long term weather patterns and don't get alarmed by what appears to be sudden changes. Humans cannot affect the weather like so many think and even if they could create weather hazards they could not fix them no matter how many trillions of US dollars are spread all over the earth in bogus claims that they can fix the weather.

vegas giants · Mar 21, 2020

marke said:
Look at long term weather patterns and don't get alarmed by what appears to be sudden changes. Humans cannot affect the weather like so many think and even if they could create weather hazards they could not fix them no matter how many trillions of US dollars are spread all over the earth in bogus claims that they can fix the weather.

You certainly have an opinion.

You just dont have any evidence. Lol

marke · Mar 21, 2020

vegas giants said:
You certainly have an opinion.
You just dont have any evidence. Lol

I have enough evidence that since the time God promised to keep the seas in check and not let them overflow earth again the seas have remained in check and have not overflowed earth again. That is why I knew Al Gore was blowing smoke years ago when he predicted New York City would be under 20' of sea flooding in a short time if America did not get serious about spending tens of billions of dollars in efforts to stop the flooding.

vegas giants · Mar 21, 2020

marke said:
I have enough evidence that since the time God promised to keep the seas in check and not let them overflow earth again the seas have remained in check and have not overflowed earth again. That is why I knew Al Gore was blowing smoke years ago when he predicted New York City would be under 20' of sea flooding in a short time if America did not get serious about spending tens of billions of dollars in efforts to stop the flooding.

Yes yes you have more opinion and you post no evidence.

Dismissed

bluesmoke · Mar 21, 2020

code1211 said:
Do you check your arguments to make sure they support your case and not mine before posting?

The highlighted portion includes my statement that it has been much warmer in the past with far lower CO2 concentrations to drive the temperature rise.

I argued that our planet has been much much warmer when CO2 was much, much lower. This shows that the effect you cite occurs in nature without the cause you cite.

You then proceeded to post evidence that when CO2 concentration was about 80ppm lower you say the planet's temperature was 5 degrees warmer.

Case closed.

You're using your "far lower CO2" as if the current CO2 levels, though so high, are not a driver of temperature. My graph shows, though, that CO2 and temp rises and falls together. That our CO2 levels are higher now than ever before show that as a driver it is causing temp to rise at a much high rate than before, including when temps were higher but CO2 lower. Temp simply has yet to catch up in ratio with CO2 as in the past because CO2 is the DRIVER that forces temp UP ahead of the CO2 level. If we stopped increasing CO2 emission into the atmosphere, temp would still continue to rise and the ratio get closer to more closely match ratio in the past.

Case closed.

PS This reply is for your edification as you can see by my last reply the debate itself is over.

Jack Hays · Mar 21, 2020

bluesmoke said:
You're using your "far lower CO2" as if the current CO2 levels, though so high, are not a driver of temperature. My graph shows, though, that CO2 and temp rises and falls together. That our CO2 levels are higher now than ever before show that as a driver it is causing temp to rise at a much high rate than before, including when temps were higher but CO2 lower. Temp simply has yet to catch up in ratio with CO2 as in the past because CO2 is the DRIVER that forces temp UP ahead of the CO2 level. If we stopped increasing CO2 emission into the atmosphere, temp would still continue to rise and the ratio get closer to more closely match ratio in the past.

Case closed.

PS This reply is for your edification as you can see by my last reply the debate itself is over.

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

bluesmoke · Mar 21, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
If AGW is not catastrophic is it at all bad?

What do you think is the single worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions?

Good questions deserve respective reply, thank you.

“If AGW is not catastrophic is it at all bad?”

Though not definitionally catastrophic, there is enough degree rise of temperature to be all bad. Collateral “good” would be to rationalize. “I was overweight before, but now that I have cancer, I’ve lost weight that I couldn’t before”

“What do you think is the single worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions?”

As singular I can get, IMO, would be melting of the polar glacial ice in its part of more severe water cycling. The result is rising sea level, flooding, and drought and heat waves brought on by further increased GW due to loss of reflective cooling from the polar ice.

Tim the plumber · Mar 21, 2020

bluesmoke said:
Good questions deserve respective reply, thank you.

“If AGW is not catastrophic is it at all bad?”

Though not definitionally catastrophic, there is enough degree rise of temperature to be all bad. Collateral “good” would be to rationalize. “I was overweight before, but now that I have cancer, I’ve lost weight that I couldn’t before”

“What do you think is the single worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions?”

As singular I can get, IMO, would be melting of the polar glacial ice in its part of more severe water cycling. The result is rising sea level, flooding, and drought and heat waves brought on by further increased GW due to loss of reflective cooling from the polar ice.

Let's start with ethe sea level rise due to ice melt.

How much sea level rise do you think will happen? It is important because I see the expected amount to be trivial. So please state a number of some sort.

vegas giants · Mar 21, 2020

bluesmoke said:
Good questions deserve respective reply, thank you.

“If AGW is not catastrophic is it at all bad?”

Though not definitionally catastrophic, there is enough degree rise of temperature to be all bad. Collateral “good” would be to rationalize. “I was overweight before, but now that I have cancer, I’ve lost weight that I couldn’t before”

“What do you think is the single worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's predictions?”

As singular I can get, IMO, would be melting of the polar glacial ice in its part of more severe water cycling. The result is rising sea level, flooding, and drought and heat waves brought on by further increased GW due to loss of reflective cooling from the polar ice.

It's a waste of time with him

code1211 · Mar 22, 2020

bluesmoke said:
You're using your "far lower CO2" as if the current CO2 levels, though so high, are not a driver of temperature. My graph shows, though, that CO2 and temp rises and falls together. That our CO2 levels are higher now than ever before show that as a driver it is causing temp to rise at a much high rate than before, including when temps were higher but CO2 lower. Temp simply has yet to catch up in ratio with CO2 as in the past because CO2 is the DRIVER that forces temp UP ahead of the CO2 level. If we stopped increasing CO2 emission into the atmosphere, temp would still continue to rise and the ratio get closer to more closely match ratio in the past.

Case closed.

PS This reply is for your edification as you can see by my last reply the debate itself is over.

I appreciate that you feel what you feel regarding temperature and CO2.

You state as fact real world evidence that destroys your case.

You know the facts. The facts destroy your beliefs. Your response is to hold you baseless beliefs even more strongly.

AGAIN: You state as FACT that when CO2 was 80 ppm lower, the global temperature was 5 degrees warmer. Please explain how this supports your case.

A way to convince the deniers

Traveler