Climate change

[leatherback]

Oh for Pete's sake. Where do you think the media gets their information from? They get it from predictions from the IPCC who in turn get it from their scientific researches. Jeezuz! What's that matter with you? There are any amount of catastrophic sea level rise predictions. They are NOT made up by the media. They are REPORTED by the media.
The Sea level is rising at more or less 1mm per year (depending on where you are in the world, but you can round it off to 1mm per year) and has been doing so since coming out of the little ice age. We have coped with this quite well for 100 years and will continue to do so. There is no, repeat, NO INCREASE IN THE RATE OF RISE. The proof is here below. (there are plenty of other good charts from the US. This one is from Fort Denison Au).

Look at the recorded rise and it's rate!


LOOK!!!!!!.....0.6 +/- 0.1 mm/year since 1880.

View attachment 214251

Whenever you sea problems with coastlines on the TV or the news papers, it is due to erosion from storm surges or land displacement from tectonic influences or both. Not sea level rise. There is one ''brainwashed'' person here - and that's you my friend. You are on the wrong side! By the way the above chart is from NOAA.

Happy to hear you accept NOAA as a good source of information. If you take the time to actually read their website, you realize that one individual measurement does not explain the global pattern. As in bonsai, if depends. It depends on where you measure, what the outcome is. As such, it is important to look at many locations. Which is what they do. And they conclude:

https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/tracking-sea-level-rise-and-fall

 

[AlainK]

NO INCREASE IN THE RATE OF RISE.

Fake news!

I just can't believe you're so deaf and blind. It just blows my mind.

PS: You live in australia for the moment, but you weren't born there, were you?...

 

[MichaelS]

papymandarin, post: 601949, member: 17034"]you are again using an isolated local study from who knows article, cherry picking at it's finest

Hmm, isolated heh? So many cherries to pick!

Let's start with this little cherry..



A couple of charts from tide gauges around the world......









Tide gauges from around Australia. One of the most tectonically stable places on Earth...
The MEAN trend here is......0.3mm/year.

 

[MichaelS]

Hawaii plotted with c02 curve...



And finally satellite with projection and actual trend from 2004/5



Face it warmists, The real evidence is not agreeing with your pseudo-science garbage.
I have papers on coastal erosion around the world too if you want to look at them to help you understand what's happening to them.
Let me know....

 

[MichaelS]

="AlainK,

PS: You live in australia for the moment, but you weren't born there, were you?...

Me thinks you are losing it! Drawing conclusions from thin air seems to be part of the alarmist MO!

 

[MichaelS]

leat

herback, post: 601956, member: 16946"]Happy to hear you accept NOAA as a good source of information. one individual measurement does not explain the global pattern. As in bonsai, if depends. It depends on where you measure, what the outcome is. As such, it is important to look at many locations. Which is what they do. And they conclude:

I used NOAA data because I thought you might accept it. Most of what comes out of NOAA is adjusted nonsense. Just as that quote shows.

I have included global patterns for you above from actual data not just a sentence in a report.
There is much more from all over the place.

 

[leatherback]

I used NOAA data because I thought you might accept it. Most of what comes out of NOAA is adjusted nonsense.

OK, great. Then I am done here. If you are not willing to even accept your own sources of information there is absolutely no need to keep talking.

 

[Cypress187]

Let me know....

For like 3 decades there is a group of scientists reading practically all peer reviewed papers on climate change, and they summarized them for us in 1 neat document: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ (that's their latest).
You can link graphs and blogs until eternity but it's useless because it's already read and filtered by them. If you don't want to 'believe' a huge group of scientists than I wish you good luck with that, I'm not going to try and debunk every graph found on the internet (some even made by bloggers).

 

[A. Gorilla]

"Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, 'I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he told the faculty member, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it.' "

I think of this when people spam their materials and tell me to figure it out.

What I do know is that I've been told a lot of B.S. predictions.

 

[coh]

For like 3 decades there is a group of scientists reading practically all peer reviewed papers on climate change, and they summarized them for us in 1 neat document: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ (that's their latest).
You can link graphs and blogs until eternity but it's useless because it's already read and filtered by them. If you don't want to 'believe' a huge group of scientists than I wish you good luck with that, I'm not going to try and debunk every graph found on the internet (some even made by bloggers).

That's how they try to "win", they just keep throwing little shit nuggets taken out of context or from bloggers or paid denialists or wherever. There's really no point to engaging in these types or arguments on the internet, these people have made up their mind that they know better than tens of thousands of scientists who have studied this stuff their whole lives.

 

[papymandarin]

yes, there is a veritable mountain of works showing the reality of human induced warming, compared to those not agreeing with it, but they deny the validity of the mountain over the peeble. You can even find nowadays doctor thinking tobacco is harmless, or astronomes still thinking the sun rotates around the earth, that does not make them right. But of course it is those in contradiction to their beliefs who are wrong, they are just alike creationists.
The mountain is doing "garbage pseudo science" (which in itself with no evidence to prove it, is just plainly diffamation....) tens of thousands of scientists, millions of people if you count scientists using this knowledge in other fields of science and all people around scientist and scientific literature ect, are all producing "garbage", false conclusions. And this for more than 50 years, the amount of coordination between all these people to produce (in a constantly ongoing process) a "false body of data", coherent enough to fool everybody while not self contradicting over all what is produced all the time is just impossible. And in this time never a leak in a conspiracy of millions? And for what results when CO2 emissions are still on the rise? And who can pay enough for these people to risk their career for 50 years for who knows what benefice (as far as i know we didn't became millionaires in the last decades)? As if scientists needed that to have things to study or have grants. This is just laughably ridiculous to claim that a whole part of the scientific community is doing garbage or fake or who know what far fetched assumption. But for them it is much more plausible than several hundred millions dollar profit oil companies doing what they can to slow the inevitable,.

 

[leatherback]

But for them it is much more plausible that several hundred miilions dollar profit oil company doing what they can to slow the inevitable.

The fun part is when those oil companies are starting to turn around, and start acting on this crap pseudo-science message..
https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.html
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1461955/shell-invest-up-2-billion-new-energies

Or when reprts come out showing that 40 years ago these oil companies came to the same conclusion as fake-news-corrupt-scientistst:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html

But of course. There are always knuckleheads who think they know better than the rest of the world.

 

[Cypress187]

companies are starting to turn around

Nice to see some change, I like clean energy instead of destroying our climate with burning cheap dirty energy.

 

[Bananaman]

Nice to see some change, I like clean energy instead of destroying our climate with burning cheap dirty energy.

What is clean energy and is it equal?

 

[MichaelS]

Nice to see some change, I like clean energy instead of destroying our climate with burning cheap dirty energy.

Clueless, hopeless, pointless.

 

[M. Frary]

Clueless, hopeless, pointless.

How exactly is he clueless and hopeless liking clean energy?
Is it pointless because there is no such thing or because fossil fuels arent actually dirty?

 

[MichaelS]

How exactly is he clueless and hopeless liking clean energy?
Is it pointless because there is no such thing or because fossil fuels arent actually dirty?

He does not know what clean energy is. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of these people think those pictures of cooling towers spewing white smoke into the air is co2 or dirty ''something'' or other. It's just water. The incidence of people suffering complications from air borne particulates has gone down dramatically because we have changed what we allow into the air. It is very easy to capture particulates from coal burning power stations. Fossil fuels can be just as clean as solar or the appalling wind power monstrosities blighting landscapes everywhere. That's why he is clueless. He is hopeless because he and others like him refuse to acknowledge reality and live in a dream world. And it's pointless for me to continue.

 

[papymandarin]

and now the myth of the clean coal, which does not exist, a fact known for at least ten years :
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608191/clean-coals-flagship-project-has-failed/
http://ieefa.org/debunking-myth-clean-coal/
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23fri3.html

the good thing with science denialists is that they are very predictable, always using the same arguments even when they have been demonstrated wrong, but of course everybody is lying so no rational argument can convince them. And we are the one living in dreams?

 

[Cypress187]

What is clean energy and is it equal?

Clean means it doesn't change the composition of the atmosphere in this case, it's not equal because the non-clean energy is free at the moment (it's not illegal and it's free to emit carbon dioxide into the air, even though we know it causes irreversible damage to the climate system).

Clueless, hopeless, pointless.

Yeah, who want's to look to the future, it's all about now and profit.

 

[M. Frary]

Fossil fuels can be just as clean

But they're not.
So for right now solar,wind and hydroelectric are much cleaner.
And there seems to be no rush to get fossil fuels to a point where they are just as clean.
In fact just the opposite is happening here.