We Are "Chasing Our Tail" Trying to Save Glaciers, and Earth

[ataraxia]

The PSMSL record goes back to 1807. Your post said:

And so that’s why the last century and a half of climate change science is wrong?

 

[ataraxia]

Such is the result, if not the goal, of most environmental regulations and legislation.

Have you asked the people being already affected?

For example, rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased pest and disease pressure are making farming more challenging. Many farmers are concerned about the impact on their livelihoods and food security

https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/more-than-70-of-farmers-have-already-seen-large-impacts-of-climate-change-on-their-farm-new-global-research-across-8-countries-reveals/

 

[ataraxia]

And do you think they're just going to sit there and drown?

First it will probably take several centuries at the rate water is rising today for even Miami to be underwater but I'm betting and those centuries that people ****ing move.

Nah, first there is going to be food insecurity and rising prices. Then you’re not going to have enough ammo for your AR to shoot all the people escaping their drowning islands in the Pacific. Canada is going to have to build a wall to keep out all those hungry poor Americans from escaping the shit hole they created in their own country- because that’s where all the new agricultural productivity is going to be happening.

 

[ataraxia]

How many times each year will someone demand something posted many times before. Not my problem that you keep dismissing good papers. I have no time at the moment to find it for you again. Here you are denying the role black carbon (soot) plays.

I have yet to see quotes from the bodies if these papers that supposedly debunk their own abstracts.

 

[ataraxia]

Any article that does not consider soot as a primary ice melting agent, is not worth reading.

Why?

 

[Volunteer]

Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, and Noam Chomsky are all against nuclear power.
Friends of the earth and Greenpeace are also against nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants have also been shut down in Germany, Belgium, and Italy.

It doesn't matter that the Left opposes nuclear power. The Left has no political power. What matters is the economics of repeated failed nuclear power projects leaving that industry on U.S. taxpayer life support. Millions of utility ratepayers in the Southeast are paying, each month on their bills, billions of dollars for failed nuclear projects that will never produce squat. No new nuclear power plant construction has begun in decades without U.S. taxpayer financing. No insurance company will underwrite a liability policy for a nuclear power plant - only we taxpayers pay for that. Nuclear waste still has no solution and not even a cost estimate after 80 years of temporary storage.

Nuclear power is a failed experiment despite the promises made beginning in the mid-1900s. To date, the economics still don't work. We could deploy gigawatts of solar energy by next year, and every year, while waiting the average 10-11 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Post #48

LOL....if you've posted the information about soot and global warming in the past, then you can access it easily. AND, of course, don't forget that you are the one who brought up "soot" in the context of global warming.

That you don't want to do this - to inform posters about the role soot plays in global warming - is on you.

I can when I have the time. I specifically steted "I have no time at the moment." I was wrapping things up to leave the house. At this momebt U an using my cell phone and am not by my computer.

Words have meaning. No wonder you fail so often. Your comprehension sucks.

Now if I post the papers link after I am back home and have the time, will you read it or deny? If you read it, are you capable of understanding it, or do you need a lying blogger to tell you why to ignore it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And do you think they're just going to sit there and drown?

First it will probably take several centuries at the rate water is rising today for even Miami to be underwater but I'm betting and those centuries that people ****ing move.

Unless they are as dumb as the average AGW cult member.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And so that’s why the last century and a half of climate change science is wrong?

Nothing wrong with the science itself. Read the papers. Stop listening to the lying pundits. They lie about what the papers actually repeesent.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Have you asked the people being already affected?

For example, rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased pest and disease pressure are making farming more challenging.

Really. I have never seen a study indicating any truth to that. Now there are papers about how atmospheric particle contaminents affect precipitation patterns. There are also papers that speak of how the UHIE alters the precipitation directly above a city. But you would be gard pressed to find anything but unproven speculation about AGW and precipitation.

Many farmers are concerned about the impact on their livelihoods and food security

Only because they are not climatologists or undertsand such sciences, and are being told lies.

https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/more-than-70-of-farmers-have-already-seen-large-impacts-of-climate-change-on-their-farm-new-global-research-across-8-countries-reveals/

Yep. And if you follow the link in the aeticle, the farmers are not crying "climate change." They are climing weather out of the norm. Well guess what. The climate is never normal and stable. It has chaotic patterns naturally, so this article you link is just more propagabda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have yet to see quotes from the bodies if these papers that supposedly debunk their own abstracts.

I never said that. I never used the word "debunk." Words have meaning. No wonder you chonically fail. You lack the necessary conprehension.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why?

Because soot on ice is a very significant and well known cause of ice melt. It is probably the largest factor. Any paper ignoring this fact derrives a conclusion witout sufficient fact.

 

[ataraxia]

Because soot on ice is a very significant and well known cause of ice melt. It is probably the largest factor. Any paper ignoring this fact derrives a conclusion witout sufficient fact.

We know your opinions. They contradict the abstract of scientific paper We were looking for quotes from bodies of papers that purportedly contradict their abstracts, like you claim.

Otherwise, this is all just your personal opinions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We know your opinions. They contradict the abstract of scientific paper We were looking for quotes from bodies of papers that purportedly contradict their abstracts, like you claim.

Otherwise, this is all just your personal opinions.

It doesn't matter what I show you as you are unqualified to make any judgements.

 

[Deuce]

And do you think they're just going to sit there and drown?

n...no. It is extremely weird that you think this was the argument.

First it will probably take several centuries at the rate water is rising today for even Miami to be underwater but I'm betting and those centuries that people ****ing move.

Sure. Just buy a new house somewhere new! Surely everyone can do that. Also, forcibly displacing people is apparently not a negative consequence? LMAO.

Also, in the interim period a higher sea level means larger impact from storm surge during hurricanes. More damage to the city.

 

[Deuce]

Any article that does not consider soot as a primary ice melting agent, is not worth reading.

lol, just openly admitting you have come to the conclusion without the evidence.

 

[Steve Case]

And so that’s why the last century and a half of climate change science is wrong?

Over the years, the rate of sea level rise varies quite a bit.

Here's a plot of rate of sea level rise for 65 tide gauges with records of 100 years or more. Coincidentally the graph starts at 1880:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Post #48

LOL....if you've posted the information about soot and global warming in the past, then you can access it easily. AND, of course, don't forget that you are the one who brought up "soot" in the context of global warming.

That you don't want to do this - to inform posters about the role soot plays in global warming - is on you.

Here it is, now that I am at my computer:

Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W m−2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing.​

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

lol, just openly admitting you have come to the conclusion without the evidence.

When will you stop butting in on conversations you fail to understand?

 

[ataraxia]

We don’t have access to the bodies of the papers, just the abstracts. But you are telling us there is a giant conspiracy by all the authors, and all the reviewers of the papers, in which what is in the bodies of the papers directly contradicts the authors’ conclusions. That’s why we are so eager for you, who has access to such data that the rest of us plebes don’t, and obviously the education, background, and experience to see what all those authors and reviewers missed, to show us how and why. But alas, all you do is call us too stupid for such blessings.

It doesn't matter what I show you as you are unqualified to make any judgements.

^case in point. Try us.

 

[ataraxia]

When will you stop butting in on conversations you fail to understand?

So educate us. None of us understand what you are saying because all you are doing is cussing and insulting. This is your chance to show us how we are all being duped by the deep state and the entire global scientific community- for the last century and a half. We are all ears.

So stop the insults and show us.

 

[ataraxia]

Over the years, the rate of sea level rise varies quite a bit.

Here's a plot of rate of sea level rise for 65 tide gauges with records of 100 years or more. Coincidentally the graph starts at 1880:

View attachment 67572499

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts

Sea Level Rise Viewer: Visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides) at U.S. coastal locations.

coast.noaa.gov

 

[CLAX1911]

n...no. It is extremely weird that you think this was the argument.

So what if the coastline changes? I'm not sure anybody believes that it will anyway

Sure. Just buy a new house somewhere new! Surely everyone can do that.

Well we're talking probably about 15 generations so you're descendants won't have to buy a new house

Also, forcibly displacing people is apparently not a negative consequence? LMAO.

It's not going to happen all at once we're talking about a process over the next 600 years

Also, in the interim period a higher sea level means larger impact from storm surge during hurricanes. More damage to the city.

Yeah everybody wanted to cries about the more frequent storms and there's no evidence that that's happened.

 

[Steve Case]

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts

Sea Level Rise Viewer: Visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides) at U.S. coastal locations.

coast.noaa.gov

Your link to NOAA's tool isn't very user friendly. There's disclaimer button that says it's not fit for purpose for nearly everything.

 

[ataraxia]

Your link to NOAA's tool isn't very user friendly. There's disclaimer button that says it's not fit for purpose for nearly everything.

Here are some more links which might be easier to follow:

1. "Global sea level rise: ongoing contributions from ocean thermal expansion and melting glaciers and ice sheets"
   Church, J. A., & White, N. J. (2006), Geophysical Research Letters
   DOI: 10.1029/2005GL024826
   Summary: Demonstrates that rising sea levels are driven by thermal expansion of seawater and melting land ice—both linked to global warming.
2. "Contributions of ice sheet and glacier mass loss to global sea level rise"
   Shepherd, A. et al. (2012), Science
   DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102
   Summary: Quantifies the contribution of melting ice sheets and glaciers, showing their role in sea level rise.
3. "Anthropogenic influence on the changing risk of extreme sea levels"
   Wahl, T. et al. (2017), Nature Climate Change
   DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3241
   Summary: Links human-caused climate change to increased risk of extreme sea level events due to rising baseline levels.
4. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Chapter on Sea Level Rise
   IPCC Working Group I (2021)
   IPCC AR6 Report
   Summary: Comprehensive synthesis of global evidence, concluding with very high confidence that climate change is the dominant driver of modern sea level rise.

---

Summary of Scientific Consensus​

• Climate change causes sea level risethrough:
  • Thermal expansion of seawater as it warms
  • Melting glaciers and ice sheets
  • Loss of Arctic and Antarctic ice mass
  • Changes in terrestrial water storage
• Human activity is the primary driver of the recent acceleration in these processes.

__________________________________________

Here are some direct quotes from the papers themselves:

1. Church & White (2006)

“We show that the observed sea-level rise during the 20th century is consistent with the sum of the observed contributions from thermal expansion and land ice melting.”
DOI: 10.1029/2005GL024826

---

1. Shepherd et al. (2012)

“We show that, since 1992, melting of polar ice sheets has contributed, on average, 0.6 mm per year to sea level rise.”
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102

---

1. Wahl et al. (2017)

“Anthropogenic climate change is expected to increase the risk of extreme sea levels at many locations across the globe.”
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3241

___________________________
Let me know if these are not convincing enough. I can provide further references and quotes if you like.