[W: #839] Bad news: possible 10 foot sea rise within a decade

[Buzz]

You see, there you go again. Misinterpreting what is said.

First, in that link, I corrected that it was only 65F and not 70F like some news accounts are reporting. I looked at and linked the actual data. It was only 65F.

How can you be so uneducated as to think my words "My current assumption is it was skewed because...." is claiming it was in fact because of the urban heat island effect. On top of that, I never called the effect as being "urban."

My God man. You keep proving to us how badly you understand this material, yet you claim to know more than I.

Seriously? An assumption is just that. I never stated it as the cause. How can you be so blind?

Do you like providing this misinformation constantly, showing how inept you are on the topic?

65F or 70F... who cares? That is a minor detail that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

And it doesn't matter if you actually called it the urban heat island effect or not. You were, in fact, suggesting that heat from the station is what caused the anomalous temperature readings. And you even admitted that it was a stupid wild assed guess. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for heat from the station to have caused the temperature anomaly.

Please... don't pretend you were not proven wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

And for you to believe his misconceptions, speaks volumes about how you are no better then he is.

His?

I believe the vast majority of the worlds scientists.

Only you think this is some individual opinion.

That’s why there’s general laughter at most of your posts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is not BS. And the vast majority of people agree with me including the moderators of this forum. If it was the same then, with all the lies coming from you climate denialists, I would have been banned long ago due to all the times I have pointed out your lies.

Consensus does not make fact. You lose again.

Blah, blah, blah.... words have meaning... blah, blah, blah...

Whatever dude.

Words do have meaning. I'm sorry you deny the facts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

65F or 70F... who cares? That is a minor detail that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

And it doesn't matter if you actually called it the urban heat island effect or not. You were, in fact, suggesting that heat from the station is what caused the anomalous temperature readings. And you even admitted that it was a stupid wild assed guess. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for heat from the station to have caused the temperature anomaly.

Please... don't pretend you were not proven wrong.

I offered it as a possibility for consideration. With the available evidence, that was a viable possibility.

Why are you so naive of that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

His?

I believe the vast majority of the worlds scientists.

Only you think this is some individual opinion.

That’s why there’s general laughter at most of your posts.

Yes, people often laugh at things they don't understand.

 

[bomberfox]

I'm no expert (of course), but I can't think of anything that can be done is just five years to stop that from happening.

If we can determine exactly what parts of our shoreline will be underwater, then maybe we can take steps to move everything away from those areas.

Short of that, I don't know what can be done.

Well most pollution comes from wasteful industry and special interests that want to continue their ways.

 

[bomberfox]

L

Garbage. Are you going to post Covid misinformation next?

he does love playing pretend expert.

 

[bomberfox]

On what basis, do they "know" that large pieces of ice did not break of of Antarctica and melt in the 1800's?
The Sea level was raising then also, where was that sea level rise coming from?

 

[Buzz]

I offered it as a possibility for consideration. With the available evidence, that was a viable possibility.

Wrong. That is not what you did. Here is what you said:

This is a relatively new outpost, and they are expanding it. I assume the antropogenic warming they saw was from new constructiuon, or something similar.

I don't know where the meteorological station is located, but it seems to me it is most likely located where is is seeing heat from the settlement when the wind is blowing the right direction.

Again, I assume it is measuring building heat when the wind is carrying warmth from the settlement.

You are just lying again when you claim that you were just offering it as a possibility. You were, in fact, saying that you assumed that it was waste heat from the station that caused the anomalous temp readings.

You just can't stop lying, can you?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, people often laugh at things they don't understand.

They may,

But they definitely laugh at your posts that they clearly understand to be laughable.

I mean… I’m not the first person to tell you this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wrong. That is not what you did. Here is what you said:



You are just lying again when you claim that you were just offering it as a possibility. You were, in fact, saying that you assumed that it was waste heat from the station that caused the anomalous temp readings.

You just can't stop lying, can you?

I'm not lying. With the information at hand, I saw it as the most probably reason. I have already said that.

Whoop-te-do...

Why do you think that matters? I never claimed it was the reason. Why don't you understand?

 

[Buzz]

I'm not lying. With the information at hand, I saw it as the most probably reason. I have already said that.

Whoop-te-do...

Why do you think that matters? I never claimed it was the reason. Why don't you understand?

What are you talking about? You were assuming it was the cause of the readings!!!

Damn, LoP... your intellectual dishonesty just never ends.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What are you talking about? You were assuming it was the cause of the readings!!!

Damn, LoP... your intellectual dishonesty just never ends.

Yes, I assumed it was the probable cause.

So?

I never stated it was the cause. I knew it could be something else. Please stop projecting your absolute black/white thinking on me. I rarely ever do that, like you constantly do.

 

[longview]

View attachment 67389229

It is a fair question.

 

[bluesmoke]

More BS!

Longview needs to learn and understand that increasing CO2 can block outgoing LW radiation at the same time that increasing temperatures increase the amount of outgoing LW radiation. I don't know why he thinks only one can happen at a time.

He's a runaround artist and an info spammer on some specific part of a whole of which argument, being the significance of AGW, he can't refute. He lost the whole of the debate, so just picks out molehills to blow hot air into and make imaginary mountains of. Hilarious.

 

[longview]

He's a runaround artist and an info spammer on some specific part of a whole of which argument, being the significance of AGW, he can't refute. He lost the whole of the debate, so just picks out molehills to blow hot air into and make imaginary mountains of. Hilarious.

So please tell me the feedback factor necessary for 1.1C of 2XCO2 forcing warming to become 3C of maximum warming?

 

[PoS]

I don't worship scientists. I simply trust expertise. At least I don't worship the orange fascist or Nazis on Fox

And you cant even name one scientist that you claim you trust. I bet her first name is Greta.

 

[bluesmoke]

So please tell me the feedback factor necessary for 1.1C of 2XCO2 forcing warming to become 3C of maximum warming?

I know the significance of the factor is not enough to tip the scales away from the scientific conclusion that most if not all of the increase in global warming is anthropogenic of which the greatest amount is CO2. Your inability and/or refusal to grasp that scientific conclusion is proved by you continuing to spam insignificant factor already considered in scientific study of GW, none of which spam apart or in whole together refutes the scientific reality of AGW/ACC. All you do is then go to another already factored factoid in the study of GW and make it appear more than it is, in your vain and overly elaborative attempt to refute the facts of AGW by citing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin with your typical distraction from the whole of the argument you failed at long ago.

 

[longview]

I know the significance of the factor is not enough to tip the scales away from the scientific conclusion that most if not all of the increase in global warming is anthropogenic of which the greatest amount is CO2. Your inability and/or refusal to grasp that scientific conclusion is proved by you continuing to spam insignificant factor already considered in scientific study of GW, none of which spam apart or in whole together refutes the scientific reality of AGW/ACC. All you do is then go to another already factored factoid in the study of GW and make it appear more than it is, in your vain and overly elaborative attempt to refute the facts of AGW by citing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin with your typical distraction from the whole of the argument you failed at long ago.

Lots of words but not a lot of meaning.
There is no feedback requirement to show that the majority of the observed warming is anthropogenic.
The feedback is required for the predicted warming to become catastrophic.
The problem with this is that the feedback factors in all the instrument record, does not show a
sustained level of feedback factor high enough for the predictions of 2XCO2 =3C to be true.

 

[expat_panama]

Well both first and second law, but yes you cannot create or destroy energy, and photons just like heat
are representations of energy in different forms. If Earth has more energy coming in than leaving, it will warm up.
Where this runs afoul of the concept of AGW, is that from our limited visibility of energy in vs energy out,
the increase in energy is in the wrong portion of the spectrum, to be caused by CO2.
What is being observed is that less shortwave radiation is leaving, the longwave radiation that CO2 would stop,
is actually increasing it's exit.

my thinking goes back to the question of whether we do or do not have "more energy coming in than leaving". One factor w/ regard to energy is the distance to the sun (say, three % greater in December than in June) coupled w/ the inverse square law gives us a 6% variation in energy recieved in December. Couple that w/ sunspot cycles, the earth's orbital precession, and then also we got the yadda yadda plus the etc. --u see what I mean?

 

[longview]

my thinking goes back to the question of whether we do or do not have "more energy coming in than leaving". One factor w/ regard to energy is the distance to the sun (say, three % greater in December than in June) coupled w/ the inverse square law gives us a 6% variation in energy recieved in December. Couple that w/ sunspot cycles, the earth's orbital precession, and then also we got the yadda yadda plus the etc. --u see what I mean?

We have no ability to measure all of the energy pathways in and out of earth, some are simple like gravity, we know it is happening and moving energy, but we can barely detect gravity much less measure it.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Chris Hayes had a segment - don't have a link - with a reporter about cracks being found in part of the arctic indicating that a section of ice looks like it will crack into the ocean within 5 years; it is holding back a glacier the size of Florida which will then have nothing keeping it from going into the sea, which would raise sea levels 10 feet. Minor sea water temperature increases from climate change of 1-2 degrees are expected to cause that to happen.

Is our culture and are our politics that broken - ours and other countries' - that we can't take the right actions? Never in the history of the world has a society knowingly done this to the planet.

Looks like all the tales of cities like Atlantis that sank below the sea from every culture were true. Now it is our turn to see it happen first hand evidently or not. Of course I have been reading about our coastal cities disappearing due to sea level rise since I was in high school. I have stopped holding my breath because clearly I will not live long enough to see it. It is always 10 years away. Well it has been 50 years now and it is still10 years away.

 

[Buzz]

Yes, I assumed it was the probable cause.

So?

I never stated it was the cause. I knew it could be something else. Please stop projecting your absolute black/white thinking on me. I rarely ever do that, like you constantly do.

You never said probable. Sorry, LoP... but you assuming something is the cause is the same as you stating that you think it is the cause. Nothing black or white about it.

It is no wonder you think that I have never proven you wrong. You just rationalize it away with convoluted logic like this every time I do.

 

[Buzz]

The problem with this is that the feedback factors in all the instrument record, does not show a
sustained level of feedback factor high enough for the predictions of 2XCO2 =3C to be true.

Not according to actual climate scientists who study this kind of thing for a living.

 

[Threegoofs]

Not according to actual climate scientists who study this kind of thing for a living.

Weird how he seems to be oblivious of actual climate scientists and their findings.