Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[longview]

No one is screaming that sea level will rise by 8 feet



I'm glad we settled that

So why did NASA include it as a possibility?
The Effects of Climate Change

Sea Level Will Rise 1-8 feet by 2100​

Not their own referenced IPCC AR5 SPM, or even the more outrageous fourth climate assessment,
predicted an 8 foot sea level rise by year 2100, so where did NASA get the number from?
Even the paper by Robert DeConto and David Pollard which was cited as a terrifying prediction of sea level rise,
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/
Only predicted 3 feet by 2100.

 

[longview]

But not really a lie. It is a range


So is NASA lying in general about climate change?

Why did NASA's reference not include that range?
They cited IPCC AR5 SPM, which has a top end of 2.6 feet!

 

[vegas giants]

Why did NASA's reference not include that range?
They cited IPCC AR5 SPM, which has a top end of 2.6 feet!

Check their reference. They reference their claims

 

[longview]

Check their reference. They reference their claims

I did, and cited the reference, look for your self!
IPCC AR5 SPM
No 8 feet, no 2.43 meters anywhere.
We can speculate that the "experts" who edit the NASA web site, may not know the difference between .82 meters and 8 feet,
but that does not say anything good about the quality of the editors!

 

[Steve Case]

Saying that sea levels could rise by up to 8 feet by year 2100, is screaming!
NASA The Effects of Climate Change

What is strange about the above statement, is that they reference,

Here is what the IPCC AR5 SPM says about predicted sea level rise.
IPCC AR5 SPM
View attachment 67332650
That lower right hand number, for RCP8.5, is .82 meters for the high end, about 32 inches, or 2.6 feet.
One has to wonder where they came up with the 8 foot (96 inches) number from, since it is not from their reference!

One has to wonder where they came up with the 8 foot (96 inches) number from,
since it is not from their reference!

Good one!

Alinsky's rules for radicals says to ridicule and make the opponent live by their own rules.
To bad one side of the argument is pretty well censored from making that come true. And
to get to the point, that's why I'm banned from places like Skeptical Science. The recent
Covering Climate Now website under their Ten Best Practices says:

10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists.

The naked propaganda from the left is getting quite ugly. It's pretty obvious that they think
they can turn the corner and become the one party ruler of the United States. Our future is
quite bleak at this point. Off topic but, January 6th, their cop murdered an unarmed woman
at point blank range in the Capital and nothing has been done about it. How long before
people with my point of view will be declared enemy of the state. You don't have to search
very far to find left-wingers who would do exactly that:

Climate crimes must be brought to justice

Climate denial has increased the risk of catastrophic global change. Should international criminal law be used against those who promote this dangerous trend? Economic and political leaders can no longer pretend it is business as usual. Whether they actively induce environmental harm or just...

en.unesco.org

 

[vegas giants]

I did, and cited the reference, look for your self!
IPCC AR5 SPM
No 8 feet, no 2.43 meters anywhere.
We can speculate that the "experts" who edit the NASA web site, may not know the difference between .82 meters and 8 feet,
but that does not say anything good about the quality of the editors!
View attachment 67332655

Sea level rise is geographic specific. It may rise by 8 feet in some areas. They did not say global mean sea level rise will be 8 feet

 

[vegas giants]

I cant see to get a straight answer to a simple question. Lol

 

[longview]

Sea level rise is geographic specific. It may rise by 8 feet in some areas. They did not say global mean sea level rise will be 8 feet

I beg to differ!
NASA The Effects of Climate Change

Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 8 feet by 2100.

The "it" in this statement is the global sea level!

 

[vegas giants]

I beg to differ!
NASA The Effects of Climate Change

The "it" in this statement is the global sea level!

Perhaps they are referring to this study

Redirect Notice

 

[longview]

Perhaps they are referring to this study

Redirect Notice

Unlikely, as that study is not cited in the reference pages, and other than the headline's incorrect title,
does not actually say that the sea level will rise 8 feet by year 2100.

Projections for moderate emissions estimate sea levels will rise 1.4 to 2.8 feet by 2100, 2.8 to 5.4 feet by 2150 and 6 to 14 feet by 2300.

 

[vegas giants]

Unlikely, as that study is not cited in the reference pages, and other than the headline's incorrect title,
does not actually say that the sea level will rise 8 feet by year 2100.

If you read the article the IPCC cited it heavily. It seems quite certain that nasa is aware of it and included it with the ipcc reference.


Clearly they are using scientific evidence to make that prediction

 

[vegas giants]

Unlikely, as that study is not cited in the reference pages, and other than the headline's incorrect title,
does not actually say that the sea level will rise 8 feet by year 2100.

Would you like to hear it directly from Rutgers?

Global Sea Level Could Rise 50 Feet by 2300, Study Says

With 11 percent of the world's 7.6 billion people living in areas less than 33 feet above sea level, a new study, coauthored by Robert E. Kopp, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers-New Brunswick, outlines some devastating scenarios that would pose a major...

www.rutgers.edu

 

[vegas giants]

Unlikely, as that study is not cited in the reference pages, and other than the headline's incorrect title,
does not actually say that the sea level will rise 8 feet by year 2100.

Perhaps you would prefer to read the study directly?

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025826

 

[longview]

If you read the article the IPCC cited it heavily. It seems quite certain that nasa is aware of it and included it with the ipcc reference.


Clearly they are using scientific evidence to make that prediction

Clear to who? They included the references they used.

​

---

References​

1. IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 17.
   
   
2. IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
3. USGCRP 2014, Third Climate Assessment.
4. UGCRP 2017, Fourth Climate Assessment.

The 8 foot high end claim, is ether in one of those or it is

Would you like to hear it directly from Rutgers?

Global Sea Level Could Rise 50 Feet by 2300, Study Says

With 11 percent of the world's 7.6 billion people living in areas less than 33 feet above sea level, a new study, coauthored by Robert E. Kopp, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers-New Brunswick, outlines some devastating scenarios that would pose a major...

www.rutgers.edu

It does not matter who else said it! Was it said in one of their references?

 

[vegas giants]

Clear to who? They included the references they used.

The 8 foot high end claim, is ether in one of those or it is

It does not matter who else said it! Was it said in one of their references?

Well it's clear the claim is based on a peer reviewed and well respected study.


Even you can mot deny that

 

[longview]

Well it's clear the claim is based on a peer reviewed and well respected study.


Even you can mot deny that

Have you read the study, or the article you are citing?
Global Sea Level Could Rise 50 Feet by 2300, Study Says

Under moderate emissions, central estimates of global average sea-level from different analyses range from 1.4 to 2.8 more feet by 2100,

Still not 8 feet by year 2100!

 

[vegas giants]

Have you read the study, or the article you are citing?
Global Sea Level Could Rise 50 Feet by 2300, Study Says

Still not 8 feet by year 2100!

Why are you lying?

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

I think you have conceded

 

[watsup]

One has to wonder where they came up with the 8 foot (96 inches) number from,
since it is not from their reference!

Good one!

Alinsky's rules for radicals says to ridicule and make the opponent live by their own rules.
To bad one side of the argument is pretty well censored from making that come true. And
to get to the point, that's why I'm banned from places like Skeptical Science. The recent
Covering Climate Now website under their Ten Best Practices says:

10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists.

The naked propaganda from the left is getting quite ugly. It's pretty obvious that they think
they can turn the corner and become the one party ruler of the United States. Our future is
quite bleak at this point. Off topic but, January 6th, their cop murdered an unarmed woman
at point blank range in the Capital and nothing has been done about it. How long before
people with my point of view will be declared enemy of the state. You don't have to search
very far to find left-wingers who would do exactly that:

Climate crimes must be brought to justice

Climate denial has increased the risk of catastrophic global change. Should international criminal law be used against those who promote this dangerous trend? Economic and political leaders can no longer pretend it is business as usual. Whether they actively induce environmental harm or just...

en.unesco.org

Right wing rant and rave. Paranoia has become quite rampant among the far right, fueled by the lies and hate of the media that they prefer.

 

[longview]

Why are you lying?

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

I think you have conceded

Why do you think I am lying, here is the entire quote,

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

Since the start of the century, global average sea-level has risen by about 0.2 feet. Under moderate emissions,
central estimates of global average sea-level from different analyses range from 1.4 to 2.8 more feet by 2100,

Now let's consider the two statements.
"if greenhouse gas emissions remain high", a business as usual scenario, i.e. RCP8.5, except that RCP8.5
has not existed yet, and likely cannot exist, as it would require emission growth of 12 ppm per year, compared to
the 2 to 3 ppm per year for the last 20 years.
What they call moderate emissions are what we have been seeing, so the central estimates are valid at 1.4 to 2.8 more feet by 2100.

 

[vegas giants]

Why do you think I am lying, here is the entire quote,

Now let's consider the two statements.
"if greenhouse gas emissions remain high", a business as usual scenario, i.e. RCP8.5, except that RCP8.5
has not existed yet, and likely cannot exist, as it would require emission growth of 12 ppm per year, compared to
the 2 to 3 ppm per year for the last 20 years.
What they call moderate emissions are what we have been seeing, so the central estimates are valid at 1.4 to 2.8 more feet by 2100.

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

 

[longview]

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

And if nasa’s page intended to reference that, they should have done so! As it stands their references do not support their statements!

 

[vegas giants]

And if nasa’s page intended to reference that, they should have done so! As it stands their references do not support their statements!

Thank you for your opinion. Clearly they are referring to this study which says



4.1.2. High-end estimates.

High-end (sometimes referred to as “worst-case”) bottom-up estimates complement central-range estimates. Pfeffer et al. (145) constructed a high-end (2.0 m GMSL rise by 2100) sea-level rise scenario based on plausible accelerations of Greenland ice discharge, determined partially by the fastest local, annual rates of ice-sheet discharge currently observed. This estimate has subsequently been debated, and additional contributions from thermal expansion [based on an Earth system model (148)], groundwater discharge, and Antarctica (e.g., 55) have been suggested, raising the high-end projection to ∼2.6 m. Furthermore, the highest among DeConto & Pollard's (143) ensemble of Antarctic simulations exceeded 1.7 m of sea-level rise from Antarctica alone in 2100 under RCP8.5, suggesting that high-end outcomes well in excess of 3 m of GMSL rise by 2100 cannot be excluded under RCP8.5.

 

[longview]

Thank you for your opinion. Clearly they are referring to this study which says



4.1.2. High-end estimates.

High-end (sometimes referred to as “worst-case”) bottom-up estimates complement central-range estimates. Pfeffer et al. (145) constructed a high-end (2.0 m GMSL rise by 2100) sea-level rise scenario based on plausible accelerations of Greenland ice discharge, determined partially by the fastest local, annual rates of ice-sheet discharge currently observed. This estimate has subsequently been debated, and additional contributions from thermal expansion [based on an Earth system model (148)], groundwater discharge, and Antarctica (e.g., 55) have been suggested, raising the high-end projection to ∼2.6 m. Furthermore, the highest among DeConto & Pollard's (143) ensemble of Antarctic simulations exceeded 1.7 m of sea-level rise from Antarctica alone in 2100 under RCP8.5, suggesting that high-end outcomes well in excess of 3 m of GMSL rise by 2100 cannot be excluded under RCP8.5.

I am guessing that you missed the idea the current emissions is present tense, and we are not now or have we ever been on track for RCP8.5
So they cannot make a business as usual argument for a emission scenario that has never existed!
Again NASA’s references did not cover any of the studies that speak of the long tail model projections.

 

[vegas giants]

I am guessing that you missed the idea the current emissions is present tense, and we are not now or have we ever been on track for RCP8.5
So they cannot make a business as usual argument for a emission scenario that has never existed!
Again NASA’s references did not cover any of the studies that speak of the long tail model projections.

Well that is certainly your opinion. But we also certainly cant rule it out so it remains a high end possibility.


I'm glad we resolved this.


NASA is right

 

[gbg3]

Koonin and his new book has the left very worked up. It's not helping that he was an Obama admin scientist.
He's an interesting fellow. Paul Gigot did an interview with him on Journal Editorial Report yesterday.