Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

[Media_Truth]

[h=3]Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission Tells ...[/h]
[url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../prepare-for-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-california-...
[/URL]

Sep 21, 2018 - California coastal cities should be prepared for the possibility that oceans will rise more than 10 feet by 2100 and submerge parts of beach ...

Perhaps you would like to keep up with the thread. This has already been posted and refuted. You left out the subtitle.

Though an extreme scenario, it should be factored in to coastal infrastructure planning, new guidance suggests

This is a case of the CA Commission in a CYA mode - taking the absolutely worst case. Why are you people such dishonest chrry-pickers?

 

[Media_Truth]

Learn to read.

View attachment 67242282

Nice post... Thanks for sharing...

 

[Into the Night]

They measure the sea's level relative to the show where they are placed, which is all that really matters.

That is not global sea level.

 

[Into the Night]

:roll:
• Since you missed it: I did find a sea level prediction that is for a period that is almost over, and the amount is accurate.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. You have no valid reference.

:roll:
• Since you missed it: The IPCC just put out a huge report talking about likely scenarios for 2050. I'm going to guess that a good chunk of those participants will still be alive then.

The IPCC is not a valid source. It denies science and mathematics.

:roll:
• Since you missed it: We're talking specifically about sea level rise, and again, I haven't seen many predictions for levels for 2000, 2010, 2020 etc. The California report in the SciAm article you referenced, for example, starts at 2030.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.

:roll:
• That said, scientists do make fairly specific predictions for closer time spans (just not necessarily about sea level rise). E.g. there are plenty of temperature predictions for the entire 21st century.
• If they haven't been making predictions for years like 2000, 2010, or 2020, then how can anyone proclaim that "all the predictions are wrong" ?

Science does not have the power of prediction. It is an open functional system. The power of prediction only comes with the power of proof. It only exists in closed functional systems, like mathematics. A theory of science can only describe, it cannot predict. The theory MUST be transcribed into a closed functional system to gain the power of prediction. That process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The result is called a 'law'.

There is no equation to calculate the sea level for any given year or time.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep.

Again, that is the highest level prediction, and for a specific area. The idea being that if a community wants to prepare for the absolute worst, they should prep for ~10 feet by 2100.

The fact that it's a significant number does not, in and of itself, prove that it's wrong -- especially since we see a dramatic escalation in ice mass loss, which will contribute far more to sea level rise than in the past.

Try actually reading the report. And by "read" I actually mean "read," not "skim to cherry-pick items that fit your agenda."
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/9/w6g/w6g-9-2018-exhibits.pdf

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no equation to calculate global sea level for any given year or time.

 

[Into the Night]

So do you consider a less than 2 feet sea level rise to be a disaster for humanity?

I guess he ignores the tide.

 

[Into the Night]

You do realize that we're talking about a report prepared by the California Coastal Commission, based on local conditions, and those are the worst-case scenario numbers? And that like I said, the result of a 6 foot rise in global average sea level means it will be higher in some coastal areas, and lower in others?

I don't care who it is. It is not possible to measure global sea level. There is no equation to calculate global sea level for any given year or time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Perhaps you would like to keep up with the thread. This has already been posted and refuted. You left out the subtitle.

Though an extreme scenario, it should be factored in to coastal infrastructure planning, new guidance suggests

This is a case of the CA Commission in a CYA mode - taking the absolutely worst case. Why are you people such dishonest chrry-pickers?

It may have already been posted, but it has certainly not been "refuted." You asked for a reputable ten-foot SLR prediction. Asked & answered. Don't run from your own request.

 

[Cattle Company]

What a wonderful example of right-wing wingnuttery - if a group of scientists have to adjust their data, the right-wingers assume that those scientists were actually faking it the entire time!

Yep! Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica, where only the American conservatives know the REAL truth, huh? 'Cause all the other nations, and the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community (and nearly the entire climatology community) agree on global warming...so that means that they all must be in on it! It's a VAST left-wing conspiracy including almost all the scientists and including every other nation on the planet...and only the 'Murican right wing stands between them and rampant socialism forcing Big Oil and Big Coal to kneel before socialism!!!!!

Good grief. This, people, is why conspiracy theories are seen as the province of the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.

I agree that climate changes. From one cycle to another. But I am skeptical of the leftwinger version of climate change since they say this is the very first time it has ever changed and communist tyranny is the answer to all the worlds problems.

 

[Cattle Company]

The problem aint anything about sea levels and climate change. Even the scientists tell us things fluctuate. The problem is in how dishonest the leftwingers are in their fake definitions of climate change and the bogus reasons on the why.

 

[Threegoofs]

The problem aint anything about sea levels and climate change. Even the scientists tell us things fluctuate. The problem is in how dishonest the leftwingers are in their fake definitions of climate change and the bogus reasons on the why.

Yeah!

‘Murica!

 

[Media_Truth]

It may have already been posted, but it has certainly not been "refuted." You asked for a reputable ten-foot SLR prediction. Asked & answered. Don't run from your own request.

Leave it to you to perpetuate more cherry-picking and dishonesty.

 

[Into the Night]

Which places?

Look at the map. Look at it. Which areas get most of the precipitation?



"Tiny by Antarctic" standards is irrelevant. Antarctica's ice shelves, for example, work very differently than Greenland's ice sheet.

What matters is that you do not understand that Greenland is massive. It is 976 miles long, 793 miles wide, and has 27,000 miles of coastland -- and again, almost all of that is fjords, where ice and water are flowing into the ocean.

View attachment 67242280



Except... it isn't. It is losing massive amounts of ice, almost every year. Based on satellite and airplane data, Greenland has lost an average of around 280 billion tons of ice per year since 2002.

It is astounding how you continue to peddle your false narrative, no matter how many times and how many ways you are shown that you are vastly underestimating the water and ice flows from Greenland.

It is not possible to measure the amount of snow and ice in Greenland.

 

[Cattle Company]

Yeah!

‘Murica!

Is that all you got? Shallow intellect?

 

[Visbek]

Back at you!

I did read it. That's why I kept telling you it's the maximum.

Both RCP8.5 and losses from both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets!

We're already seeing losses from the Greenland ice sheets.

Antarctica is very likely to lose significant ice mass, if temperatures soar at or near the maximum expected rates. Given that we're already seeing some collapses in the ice shelfs, there might be loss at more moderate temperatures as well.

 

[Visbek]

Nice post... Thanks for sharing...

You can thank Steve Case, who pointed out the SciAm article that describes the CA report.

 

[Threegoofs]

Is that all you got? Shallow intellect?

I thought you’d be more comfortable in that space.

 

[Jack Hays]

Leave it to you to perpetuate more cherry-picking and dishonesty.

Announced by an AGW believer organization and published in Scientific American. If any cherries were picked they were yours. What dishonesty was involved?

 

[Media_Truth]

The problem aint anything about sea levels and climate change. Even the scientists tell us things fluctuate. The problem is in how dishonest the leftwingers are in their fake definitions of climate change and the bogus reasons on the why.

Another one of those Conspiracy Theorists - the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and the thousands of scientists who contribute studies and data to the IPCC - all those dishonest "leftwingers". Uh-huh...

 

[Media_Truth]

Announced by an AGW believer organization and published in Scientific American. If any cherries were picked they were yours. What dishonesty was involved?

Yeah, I noticed how you really addressed the subtitle of the Sci Amer article. Yeah, you are just so objective. Why don't you post another link from the High Schooler, Watts. I haven't had a good laugh yet today.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Yet again. Look at the map. Tell us where the precipitation is hitting.



Yes, and if there is more ice and water flowing off of the ice sheets... which is what we are seeing... then the total ice mass of Greenland will drop. See how that works?



lol

Okay. The Isortoq River discharges at from 23,000 to 46,000 cubic feet per second during melt season. That's just one of about 100 rivers in Greenland. (In comparison, the Mississippi discharges about 16,000 cubic feet per second.) You can also look into the Watson River, the Majorqaq River, the Qinnguata Kuussua... There are lots of rivers in Greenland which empty into the oceans (basically via the fjords)

I'm sure you could also spend a few years learning about actual hydrology, and thus gain enough knowledge to sort through the National Snow & Ice Data Center's records to get a more comprehensive feel for discharge rates. Or, maybe you ought to stop while you're ahead, and accept that the people with PhDs in the appropriate fields, and study these topics for years on end, actually know what they're talking about.

So you think that the Mississippi river which is 6.4km wide has a third of the flow of a fjord where the small ice burgs which fall off the end of the glacier bob around as driven byu the wind untill they melt.

I think we are getting to the nub of the issue. You are unable to look at the same world as me.

 

[longview]

That is not global sea level.

Not relevant, to the local "where the water meets the shore.

 

[longview]

I did read it. That's why I kept telling you it's the maximum.



We're already seeing losses from the Greenland ice sheets.

Antarctica is very likely to lose significant ice mass, if temperatures soar at or near the maximum expected rates. Given that we're already seeing some collapses in the ice shelfs, there might be loss at more moderate temperatures as well.

What you are not getting is the maximum includes at least 3 events that are extremely unlikely to impossible
over the next 82 years. RCP 8.5 might as well not be considered, and the combined collapse of both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice shelves is almost as improbable. The maximum requires all three!

 

[Threegoofs]

What you are not getting is the maximum includes at least 3 events that are extremely unlikely to impossible
over the next 82 years. RCP 8.5 might as well not be considered, and the combined collapse of both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice shelves is almost as improbable. The maximum requires all three!

Just what do you think ‘worst case scenario’ means?

Or are you confused by the word ‘maximum’?

 

[longview]

Just what do you think ‘worst case scenario’ means?

Or are you confused by the word ‘maximum’?

The worst case scenario, should be possible, the combination of the above 3 events is much closer to impossible.