What do you think are the capabilities of man caused climate change?

[Buzz]

The study states flat-out that it is based on assumptions. Learn to ****ing read and get a clue.

"Assuming a rise in Global Mean Surface Temperature of between 2 and 4 ◦C by 2100."

The assumption is based on peer-reviewed and published science. Tons of it. You need to learn how to read scientific literature and maybe you will quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[Glitch]

Damn... you two keep claiming the BBC article in question is lying about the study but neither of you can actually cite any lies. And I have read it a couple of times to make sure I am not missing anything and have come to the conclusion that it is you two who are lying.

Or maybe one or both of you can quote the lies. I doubt if either of you can.

I think this whole line of BS is based on a favorite talking point of Lord's. Just because he has seen an instance or two of a pundit getting his facts wrong about the science then all pundits must lie.

The study is based on a deliberate lie. The BBC is not lying, the study they are citing is doing the lying.

Observed sea levels around East Anglia have been rising by 2.56 mm per year since the 1950s. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest sea levels will suddenly start increasing by more than 10 mm per year for the next 78 years to reach a sea level rise of 79 cm by 2100. That is the deliberate lie.

 

[Glitch]

The assumption is based on peer-reviewed and published science. Tons of it. You need to learn how to read scientific literature and maybe you will quit making a fool of yourself.

An assumption is not empirical evidence, and therefore not science. An assumption is an opinion, nothing more.

 

[Buzz]

The study is based on a deliberate lie. The BBC is not lying, the study they are citing is doing the lying.

If the BBC isn't lying then why do Lord and long keep saying they are? Does this mean that you agree with me and think they are lying about the BBC article?

Observed sea levels around East Anglia have been rising by 2.56 mm per year since the 1950s. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest sea levels will suddenly start increasing by more than 10 mm per year for the next 78 years to reach a sea level rise of 79 cm by 2100. That is the deliberate lie.

Actually, there is evidence that sea levels could start to increase by more than 10 mm per year. Maybe if you bothered to read the study and its associated references you could learn this for yourself.

But you, being a denialist, will believe whatever you want to believe.

An assumption is not empirical evidence, and therefore not science. An assumption is an opinion, nothing more.

Oh, for God's sake... read the science and quit being so willfully ignorant.

 

[longview]

Damn... you two keep claiming the BBC article in question is lying about the study but neither of you can actually cite any lies. And I have read it a couple of times to make sure I am not missing anything and have come to the conclusion that it is you two who are lying.

Or maybe one or both of you can quote the lies. I doubt if either of you can.

I think this whole line of BS is based on a favorite talking point of Lord's. Just because he has seen an instance or two of a pundit getting his facts wrong about the science then all pundits must lie.

Well quote the section of the study that says the sea level will rise by 35 cm ( 350 mm) by 2050?
If you cannot, then the article misrepresented the study!

 

[Glitch]

Actually, there is evidence that sea levels could start to increase by more than 10 mm per year. Maybe if you bothered to read the study and its associated references you could learn this for yourself.

No, there isn't. Once again, an assumption is not evidence. If you had an education you would know this, but since you were obviously indoctrinated you clearly don't.

 

[Buzz]

Well quote the section of the study that says the sea level will rise by 35 cm ( 350 mm) by 2050?
If you cannot, then the article misrepresented the study!

Quote where the article says that sea levels will rise 35cm by 2050. You won't because it never says that. Hell... it never even cites an actual amount of sea level rise.

 

[Buzz]

No, there isn't. Once again, an assumption is not evidence. If you had an education you would know this, but since you were obviously indoctrinated you clearly don't.

Whatever dude... you just repeating the same idiotic point over and over again along with personal insults isn't going to prove anything.

 

[longview]

Quote where the article says that sea levels will rise 35cm by 2050. You won't because it never says that. Hell... it never even cites an actual amount of sea level rise.

The cited article was this one, UK sea level rise
And contained this statement,

In fact, sea levels around the English coast are forecast to be around 35cm higher by 2050.

 

[Buzz]

The cited article was this one, UK sea level rise
And contained this statement,

That isn't the article I am talking about. And that article used different sources than the BBC article I, Lord, and Glitch are talking about.

 

[longview]

That isn't the article I am talking about. And that article used different sources than the BBC article I, Lord, and Glitch are talking about.

Peter posted this article 11 areas of the UK that could be underwater by 2050 if sea levels keep rising, in post #174,
Glitch posted the BBC article later in post #196, You later cited the actual study in post #232.
The original article clearly stated they expected a 35 cm sea level rise by 2050.
In addition, the Guardian also had a story where they stated,

Sea levels around the English coast are forecast to be about 35cm higher by 2050.

When I was looking for the source, I traced it through the Guardian article,
where they said

Paul Sayers, the lead author of the paper, said:

The earlier post had the more alarming statement, (35 cm rise by 2050) which cannot be supported by the study.
So many articles pick up on it I looked a bit further and found this.
Nearly 200,000 properties at risk of being lost due to sea level rise – study

Paul Sayers
England could face around 35cm (14in) of sea level rise compared to historic levels by 2050 and is nearly certain to see close to 1m (3ft) of sea level rise by the end of the century, the study said.

The study did state that table 1 assumed a 0.35 meter sea level rise, but did not state that rise was possible by 2050.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The assumption is based on peer-reviewed and published science. Tons of it. You need to learn how to read scientific literature and maybe you will quit making a fool of yourself.

Yet you are never showing us what it means if your own words.

You really need to stop criticizing others on a topic you cannot handle.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, there is evidence that sea levels could start to increase by more than 10 mm per year. Maybe if you bothered to read the study and its associated references you could learn this for yourself.

Bullshit. I have only seen such remarks to be lies, like the article in post #174. How you you keep getting roped in to believe such lies?

The article claiming the .3+ meter rise by 2050 is lying. Their source material doesn't support that. I posted the link to their source material, and a chart.

This is a lie, not a forecast:

As global sea levels continue to swell, a new study has found that 200,000 homes and businesses in England could be completely submerged in water by 2050. In fact, sea levels around the English coast are forecast to be around 35cm higher by 2050. ​

Map shows areas of the UK that could be underwater by 2050

Some places could be completely submerged by 2050

www.countryliving.com

The 0.3 meter area is in the 2100 column. Not the 2050 column.

I showed that the study they refer to does not support these numbers. I found the study and read it, like I believe you never do.

Here is more sourcing, I believe the source used for the source. Note the area that would average about the 0.35 meters is in the 2100 2 degree column. Not the 2050 column:

From page 22:





Here, again, it isn't showing a 0.35 meter rise in any 2050 projections. The Cromer 4 degree high estimate for 2050 is still short of 0.3 meters.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Sayers-2/publication/351360894_Third_UK_Climate_Change_Risk_Assessment_CCRA3_Future_flood_risk_projections/links/6093fa0c92851c490fbdbde0/Third-UK-Climate-Change-Risk-Assessment-CCRA3-Future-flood-risk-projections.pdf

Also note, they aren't using any reliable modeling. They are using RCP modeling.



Read the damn sources, not the article for the facts. Here is your chance to prove me wrong for once.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why would they need to cite a study when it is a visual representation of satellite data? And they state the sources of the data.

This is nothing but another ad hominem attack on Climate.NASA.

Why? Because sourcing is absolutely important for proper context. Also, to know the persons claim about a source is true or false.

Damn Buzz, Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that.

As for my attacks on that blog? Absolutely. You cannot trust what they say. Whose writers are not reliable with facts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The study states flat-out that it is based on assumptions, not impirical evidence like a peer-reviewed paper based on science should be based upon. Learn to ****ing read and get a clue.

"Assuming a rise in Global Mean Surface Temperature of between 2 and 4 ◦C by 2100."

Relax my friend. These indoctrinates seem to fail to understand basic facts. Assuming for them means it is factual. It's just that simple.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well quote the section of the study that says the sea level will rise by 35 cm ( 350 mm) by 2050?
If you cannot, then the article misrepresented the study!

He cannot. He will claim it's there. He will say we have to find it. He however, will refuse to give us a page to a study, quote, etc. But he knows with absolute certainty that it is there, because the priests of AGW told him so!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Quote where the article says that sea levels will rise 35cm by 2050. You won't because it never says that. Hell... it never even cites an actual amount of sea level rise.

It makes a claim, that is not supported by the paper they refer to. The paper allow for a 35 cm increase by 2100, not 2050. Therefore, it is a lie.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That isn't the article I am talking about. And that article used different sources than the BBC article I, Lord, and Glitch are talking about.

Different source?

Link please.

 

[longview]

I see in another thread new-study-finds-that-earth-can-regulate-its-own-temp-to-keep-things-habitable.
people are implying that Human caused Climate Change has a capability beyond what is stated
in the peer reviewed publications.
From it can cause most of the world uninhabitable, to it can cause human beings being wiped out.
Is this unsupported belief a result of successful propaganda, or simply repetition of hyperbole by the media?

 

[ataraxia]

So what do you all think is the upper limit of AGW capability?

No one really knows exactly. But given the range of possible risks, a fair amount of caution and preventive measures is prudent.

 

[longview]

No one really knows exactly. But given the range of possible risks, a fair amount of caution and preventive measures is prudent.

There is a finite amount of hydrocarbon energy sources, and many of those may not be economically viable to recover,
(or technically possible).
I agree that we need to move beyond fossil fuels, but because of sustainability.
We may already be at the upper end of what added CO2 can do, as the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR),
has been increasing since 2003, (Added CO2 should cause a decrease).

 

[ataraxia]

We may already be at the upper end of what added CO2 can do, as the outgoing longwave radiation

We may be. Or not.

You feelin’ lucky?

 

[multivita-man]

What'll happen is what always happens. The richest and wealthiest will find ways to adapt and survive. The globe's poorest populations have already started piling up a body count as sea levels rise, weather patterns change and weather events get more extreme.

At the end of the day the people most capable of doing something about this won't do anything because ultimately the impact of the problem will be borne by the masses, not the elite.

True, but at some point, people will rebel against the system, like what we're seeing at Foxconn right now, for instance. Think Foxconn but on a much larger and profound scale: instead of fighting against working conditions and COVID policies that are detrimental, workers not only in one locus but across numerous countries and supply chains realize that their entire country and ways of life have been ruined by global for-profit economic and political policies.

 

[longview]

We may be. Or not.

You feelin’ lucky?

Science is not a question of luck!
Consider that Human CO2 emissions growth since 2000 have averaged 2.74 ppm per year.
SSP8.5 requires CO2 growth of over 12 ppm per year, so SSP8.5 is not valid, unless we really ramp up hydrocarbon extraction.
The IPCC AR6 technical summary says,

For example, there is medium confidence that, by 2300, an intermediate scenario14
used in this Report leads to global surface temperatures of [2.3°C to 4.6°C] higher than 1850–1900,

SSP4.5 assumes the CO2 level in 2100 will be 650 ppm, or growth of about 3 ppm per year,
and the IPCC is stating that would equal a year 2300 temp of 4.6°C above the pre 1900 average.
The prediction still has a lot of assumptions, like a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3.78°C,
TCR is a more realistic simulation of sensitivity at a 2XCO2 level of 1.8°C, and would produce year 2300 warming
of 2.2°C, of which half has already happened.

 

[ataraxia]

Science is not a question of luck!

Many times science is about probabilities.

Many people smoke a lot and don't get cancer or emphysema. Seems to me they are feeling lucky. Does that mean science is wrong about the probabilities of those things with smoking and urging caution?

It seems to me that, similarly, you are feeling lucky about climate change.