Climate change again

[zubenelgenubi]

When the water reaches your nostrils, you still won't get it.

Sea levels have been rising at a steady 2mm per year since records have been kept. Completely unaffected by the burning of fossil fuels. One thing that no one talks about is the fact that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2, but water vapor as well. That means there is more water on Earth than before. The amount of ice on Earth hasn't changed all that much, either, simply its distribution.

 

[rod]

Sea levels have been rising at a steady 2mm per year since records have been kept. Completely unaffected by the burning of fossil fuels. One thing that no one talks about is the fact that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2, but water vapor as well. That means there is more water on Earth than before. The amount of ice on Earth hasn't changed all that much, either, simply its distribution.

But the sky is falling-the sky is falling.

 

[vantexan]

Again, a huge excuse that negates the reality of global warming. This is similar to the "Variable Speed of Light Theory" that evangelicals use to explain how stars 2 million light years away couldn't possibly be that old.

Crap science that is used to rationalize and affirm your faulty thought processes.

It's not climate change deniers or evangelicals saying this. There's solid research out there, look it up. For someone who fashions himself as learned and sophisticated you sure shut down anything that's outside the realm of your knowledge.

 

[vantexan]

Again, a huge excuse that negates the reality of global warming. This is similar to the "Variable Speed of Light Theory" that evangelicals use to explain how stars 2 million light years away couldn't possibly be that old.

Crap science that is used to rationalize and affirm your faulty thought processes.

And by the way, I pointed out to my fundamentalist preacher father years ago that if a star is a million light years away then the light emanating from that star took a million years to reach us. Didn't go over well.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Sea levels have been rising at a steady 2mm per year since records have been kept. Completely unaffected by the burning of fossil fuels. One thing that no one talks about is the fact that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2, but water vapor as well. That means there is more water on Earth than before. The amount of ice on Earth hasn't changed all that much, either, simply its distribution.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

It's not climate change deniers or evangelicals saying this. There's solid research out there, look it up. For someone who fashions himself as learned and sophisticated you sure shut down anything that's outside the realm of your knowledge.

Or as we say down South ... 99.99% of the knowledge of mankind.

 

[MrFedEx]

Sea levels have been rising at a steady 2mm per year since records have been kept. Completely unaffected by the burning of fossil fuels. One thing that no one talks about is the fact that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2, but water vapor as well. That means there is more water on Earth than before. The amount of ice on Earth hasn't changed all that much, either, simply its distribution.

Lie. Cite your source.

 

[MrFedEx]

View attachment 277164

This is what happens when Republicans buy electric cars. They can't do the basic math to compute range.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Lie. Cite your source.

Which part? And you first.

 

[MrFedEx]

Which part? And you first.

Sea level rise. Should be obvious.

 

[MrFedEx]

But the sky is falling-the sky is falling.

What amazes me about Conservatives is that they are almost completely reactive as opposed to proactive. You people will FINALLY sense something is wrong when it's 80 degrees in Duluth in January, and the water is touching your big screen TV, preventing you from drinking Bud and watching NASCAR.

The evidence is crystal clear, yet you choose to cling to a false narrative where "Everything is fine". Just like Trump, you'll "know" he's innocent until they show him handing Putin the football.

Idiots.

 

[rod]

What amazes me about Conservatives is that they are almost completely reactive as opposed to proactive. You people will FINALLY sense something is wrong when it's 80 degrees in Duluth in January, and the water is touching your big screen TV, preventing you from drinking Bud and watching NASCAR.

The evidence is crystal clear, yet you choose to cling to a false narrative where "Everything is fine". Just like Trump, you'll "know" he's innocent until they show him handing Putin the football.

Idiots.

 

[rod]

What amazes me about Conservatives is that they are almost completely reactive as opposed to proactive. You people will FINALLY sense something is wrong when it's 80 degrees in Duluth in January, and the water is touching your big screen TV, preventing you from drinking Bud and watching NASCAR.

The evidence is crystal clear, yet you choose to cling to a false narrative where "Everything is fine". Just like Trump, you'll "know" he's innocent until they show him handing Putin the football.

Idiots.

You never answered me about how you are going to solve the problem? Good luck getting the Chinese to go green.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Sea level rise. Should be obvious.

You accused me of lying. Where's your evidence?

This is an excerpt from the 1990 IPCC report on sea level:

"Is there evidence of any "accelerations" (or departures from long-term linear trends) in the rate of sea level rise? From examinations of both composite regional and global curves and individual tide gauge records, there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century For longer periods, however, there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries
Long-term analyses are hindered by the scarcity of tide- gauge iccords longer than 100-120 years Data are limited to a few stations in Europe and North Amenca Woodwoith (1990) inspected individual tide gauge records in Europe and lound that although there is no general evidence for an increasing (or decreasing) rate of MSL change during the past century, a regionally-coherent acceleration ol the older of 0 4mm/year per century is apparent over the last 2-3 centuries This finding is supported by Gornitz and Solow (1989) who find weak evidence for an increase in the trend around 1895 Similar conclusions were reached by Ekman (1988) from an examination of one of the longest tide-gauge records, at Stockholm. Extension of such findings to the global scale, however should be carried out with caution."

I have uploaded the entire report if you would care to look it over.

From this NOAA website (Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents):

 

[MrFedEx]

You never answered me about how you are going to solve the problem? Good luck getting the Chinese to go green.

I don't expect China to go green, although they are making progress. One big reason to produce offshore is near zero environmental regulation.

 

[vantexan]

I don't expect China to go green, although they are making progress. One big reason to produce offshore is near zero environmental regulation.

You're trying to put China's pollution in us. China has a huge amount of coal fired electricity plants and many of those have come online in the last twenty years. And much of what is manufactured is from Chinese companies who are licensed to produce our goods. Not Americans running the show. The Paris agreement would have exempted China and India until 2030 the requirements that would've ruined our economy. And every time the Left starts talking about going green they bring up issues that have nothing to do with saving the environment but everything to do with implementation of socialism. It's B.S. and only a lying socialist would deny it.

 

[MrFedEx]

You accused me of lying. Where's your evidence?

This is an excerpt from the 1990 IPCC report on sea level:

"Is there evidence of any "accelerations" (or departures from long-term linear trends) in the rate of sea level rise? From examinations of both composite regional and global curves and individual tide gauge records, there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century For longer periods, however, there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries
Long-term analyses are hindered by the scarcity of tide- gauge iccords longer than 100-120 years Data are limited to a few stations in Europe and North Amenca Woodwoith (1990) inspected individual tide gauge records in Europe and lound that although there is no general evidence for an increasing (or decreasing) rate of MSL change during the past century, a regionally-coherent acceleration ol the older of 0 4mm/year per century is apparent over the last 2-3 centuries This finding is supported by Gornitz and Solow (1989) who find weak evidence for an increase in the trend around 1895 Similar conclusions were reached by Ekman (1988) from an examination of one of the longest tide-gauge records, at Stockholm. Extension of such findings to the global scale, however should be carried out with caution."

I have uploaded the entire report if you would care to look it over.

From this NOAA website (Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents):

View attachment 277244

I just read the Executive Summary from September, 2019, which doesn't agree with the conclusions from the 1990 report.

Thanks for citing your source, but perhaps you should have cited the latest one.

 

[MrFedEx]

You're trying to put China's pollution in us. China has a huge amount of coal fired electricity plants and many of those have come online in the last twenty years. And much of what is manufactured is from Chinese companies who are licensed to produce our goods. Not Americans running the show. The Paris agreement would have exempted China and India until 2030 the requirements that would've ruined our economy. And every time the Left starts talking about going green they bring up issues that have nothing to do with saving the environment but everything to do with implementation of socialism. It's B.S. and only a lying socialist would deny it.

One of the big reasons companies relocate to China is to take advantage of lax environmental standards. They have plenty of issues, especially coal.

Sorry, but you have twisted what I said about the US. The OP claimed the US isn't a major greenhouse gas contributor, and that is simply false. We are a major source...FACT. And we have outsourced some of those issues to China...FACT.

Your screed on The Left has zero to do with socialism. If someone suggests we stop fracking, for example, that's "socialist" because it impedes capitalism. Never mind that people get polluted groundwater, earthquakes in places that have never had them etc.

It's all about the money. And when you prevent an industry from making money by destroying the environment, you all cry "SOCIALISM.

Fake, and a lie.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I just read the Executive Summary from September, 2019, which doesn't agree with the conclusions from the 1990 report.

Thanks for citing your source, but perhaps you should have cited the latest one.

Do you have a link? Or a document you'd like to upload? Are they saying they were wrong in 1990? Or did they dig up new numbers that somehow show different historical data than was available in 1990? Considering that they must be relying on the same historical data that was being used in 1990, shouldn't it be somewhat concerning that the official conclusions concerning the same period of time are changing? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Or does this new Executive Summary say that the exceleration only started since 1990?

 

[MrFedEx]

Do you have a link? Or a document you'd like to upload? Are they saying they were wrong in 1990? Or did they dig up new numbers that somehow show different historical data than was available in 1990? Considering that they must be relying on the same historical data that was being used in 1990, shouldn't it be somewhat concerning that the official conclusions concerning the same period of time are changing? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Or does this new Executive Summary say that the exceleration only started since 1990?

I used your link and went to the current reports/Executive Summary. They show dire issues related to climate change/sea level rise.

I'm not disputing what they found in 1990, but it's probable there has been an acceleration in the last 30 years. We weren't hearing about disappearing glaciers in Iceland and Switzerland in 1990, nor were we seeing seaside communities having seawater intrusion issues. I'm not a scientist, but the findings don't seem consistent with what's happening today.

Read the 2019 report and tell me something different.