What would change your mind on Climate change?

[code1211]

Some studies suggest a rising level of several millimeters per century.

Rising sea levels are an interesting topic.

Speaking exclusively about water, the "sea level" is not a constant thing world wide. It varies. There are Bulges in the sea level in different parts of the world.

Of course, there are also variations due to other forces, primarily, tides.

The study of the Pompeii, Herculaneum and Baia with relation to rising and falling sea levels has more to do with the rise and fall of the land than it has to do with the rise and the fall of the sea.

The area of Pompeii that was on the shore at the time of the Vesuvius eruption 2000 years back is now dry, about 400 feet inland, and below sea level. Like Yellowstone, the land is heaving and tilting due to tectonic movement and volcanism.

There are various forces at play regarding climate and sea levels from terrestrial changes to interplanetary gravity to changes in Solar radiation and solar winds. We control nothing.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions impact about 40% of the 3% of GHG's that comprise about 1/50th of the forcing agents that impact Global Climate.

.4 x .03 x .02 = .024%. Greta and her handlers are arguing that we need to destroy the economy based on Fossil Fuels to effect a change of about .024%.

The change to new fuels and energy storage will be self correcting with no damage to the economy whatever as better, cheaper alternatives are found. This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Moral of the story: All the people arguing about guiding the direction of our planet is like so many fleas arguing about guiding the direction of their dog.

 

[danielpalos]

Rising sea levels are an interesting topic.

Speaking exclusively about water, the "sea level" is not a constant thing world wide. It varies. There are Bulges in the sea level in different parts of the world.

Of course, there are also variations due to other forces, primarily, tides.

The study of the Pompeii, Herculaneum and Baia with relation to rising and falling sea levels has more to do with the rise and fall of the land than it has to do with the rise and the fall of the sea.

The area of Pompeii that was on the shore at the time of the Vesuvius eruption 2000 years back is now dry, about 400 feet inland, and below sea level. Like Yellowstone, the land is heaving and tilting due to tectonic movement and volcanism.

There are various forces at play regarding climate and sea levels from terrestrial changes to interplanetary gravity to changes in Solar radiation and solar winds. We control nothing.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions impact about 40% of the 3% of GHG's that comprise about 1/50th of the forcing agents that impact Global Climate.

.4 x .03 x .02 = .024%. Greta and her handlers are arguing that we need to destroy the economy based on Fossil Fuels to effect a change of about .024%.

The change to new fuels and energy storage will be self correcting with no damage to the economy whatever as better, cheaper alternatives are found. This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Moral of the story: All the people arguing about guiding the direction of our planet is like so many fleas arguing about guiding the direction of their dog.

I agree to disagree.
This is no argument:
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not useless landwalls that don't!

 

[longview]

I agree to disagree.
This is no argument:
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not useless landwalls that don't!

They kept coming back to the guy saying 4.5 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century.
How about some reality.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
the long term and average rate of rise near Miami is 2.84 mm/year or .93 feet per century.
Let compare that to the stated 4.5 feet by year 2100.
4.5 feet by 2100 is 5.55 feet per century, vs the actually recorded .93 feet per century.
This means the projection is 5.55/.93=5.97 times faster that the actual sea level rise.
I am not saying the sea level is not raising, but the rate is much slower than the alarmist claim, and has been occurring
since before CO2 would have been a factor.
Of what basis would limiting CO2 emissions slow or reverse the sea level rise?

 

[danielpalos]

They kept coming back to the guy saying 4.5 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century.
How about some reality.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
the long term and average rate of rise near Miami is 2.84 mm/year or .93 feet per century.
Let compare that to the stated 4.5 feet by year 2100.
4.5 feet by 2100 is 5.55 feet per century, vs the actually recorded .93 feet per century.
This means the projection is 5.55/.93=5.97 times faster that the actual sea level rise.
I am not saying the sea level is not raising, but the rate is much slower than the alarmist claim, and has been occurring
since before CO2 would have been a factor.
Of what basis would limiting CO2 emissions slow or reverse the sea level rise?

How about tidal minimum and tidal maximum per century to help with seawalls that promote the general welfare over landwalls that don't?

 

[longview]

How about tidal minimum and tidal maximum per century to help with seawalls that promote the general welfare over landwalls that don't?

We can deal with the correct predictions, but need to exercise caution with the hyperbolic predictions intended to excite rush decisions!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimbo]

Change your mind about taking action to mitigate AGW, presumably? For me it would be some sort of credible prediction that a warming world would not actually cause any real significant problems.

At this point we're into this AGW nonsense long enough that we no longer need predictions.

For me changing my mind would require one or two of the former predictions to actually happen.

 

[danielpalos]

We can deal with the correct predictions, but need to exercise caution with the hyperbolic predictions intended to excite rush decisions!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Transparent aluminum technologies are becoming available. With planning that takes that into account; seawalls that promote the general welfare could be more useful, longer; while still allowing for aesthetics and public use.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Transparent aluminum technologies are becoming available. With planning that takes that into account; seawalls that promote the general welfare could be more useful, longer; while still allowing for aesthetics and public use.

LOL...

Did you read what it takes to make it?

 

[danielpalos]

LOL...

Did you read what it takes to make it?

Emerging technologies may cost a lot and usually why patented technologies may be involved.

Public sector backed "junk bonds" could raise revenue to help that technology emerge sooner rather than later.



Here is a comparison and contrast:

Gillette announced the Mach3 razor on April 14, 1998,[8] following more than $750 million in research and development costs.[9]

...

Profit margins on Gillette razor blades are high.[13] In June 2009, Gillette manufactured and packaged razor blades for about US$0.10 each, and customers paid 48 times that amount in stores.

Gillette Mach3 - Wikipedia

 

[code1211]

I agree to disagree.
This is no argument:
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not useless landwalls that don't!

So, then, no thoughts or facts or justification for your dogmatic beliefs?

 

[danielpalos]

So, then, no thoughts or facts or justification for your dogmatic beliefs?

lol. Only self-evident Truths.

 

[code1211]

lol. Only self-evident Truths.

Like what?

We are not at the warmest point in the Holocene, EVERY interglacial in the last half million years has posted warmer temperatures than this one and yet the CO2 was lower in all examples that I mention.

Your thoughts?

 

[danielpalos]

Like what?

We are not at the warmest point in the Holocene, EVERY interglacial in the last half million years has posted warmer temperatures than this one and yet the CO2 was lower in all examples that I mention.

Your thoughts?

lol. Post #77.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I agree to disagree.
This is no argument:
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not useless landwalls that don't!

The solution is simple.

The accepted number is the sea level is increasing by about 3 mm per year. So property owners should bring in fill soil. It only takes 16.5 yards of dirt annually per acre to rise the land. Streets and sidewalks get replaced regularly. Build them higher when they are resurfaced. Every 100 years or so, if such old buildings still exist, detach the utilities and have a service just up the house,m and peer a new foundation under it.

Seriously.

If people want to live there, they need to pay the costs.

16.5 cubic yards per acre isn't real expensive.

 

[Renae]

For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.

I'd start taking it seriously if those harping on the dangers actually acted like CO2 was a threat. No more big confabs, all tele conferences, no more big yachts, big houses, private planes etc. Till the Limousine CO2 Fighters practice what they preach I just can't take it seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

The solution is simple.

The accepted number is the sea level is increasing by about 3 mm per year. So property owners should bring in fill soil. It only takes 16.5 yards of dirt annually per acre to rise the land. Streets and sidewalks get replaced regularly. Build them higher when they are resurfaced. Every 100 years or so, if such old buildings still exist, detach the utilities and have a service just up the house,m and peer a new foundation under it.

Seriously.

If people want to live there, they need to pay the costs.

16.5 cubic yards per acre isn't real expensive.

Yet, people are willing to help pay for less useful landwalls, for free?

Junk bonds not junk laws!

Even temporary forms of seawall technology can make improving land areas more convenient and less costly.

 

[code1211]

lol. Post #77.

You seem very sure of your conclusions and absolutely devoid of curiosity on the topic.

 

[code1211]

I'd start taking it seriously if those harping on the dangers actually acted like CO2 was a threat. No more big confabs, all tele conferences, no more big yachts, big houses, private planes etc. Till the Limousine CO2 Fighters practice what they preach I just can't take it seriously.

This is always such a hypocrisy fest when the rich and famous start performing outlandish acts of stupidity to promote a cause.

Sally Field was recently arrested at a climate protest in Washington DC.

Field lives in LA.

Doing the math apparently is not something these folks are familiar with.

Transporting her butt from LA to DC and back again undoubtedly has a Carbon Foot Print. Even if she walked, she'd have been breathing harder.

I wonder what how many tons of CO2 the airplane she used created during the trip there and the trip back.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem very sure of your conclusions and absolutely devoid of curiosity on the topic.

You seem devoid of valid arguments for rebuttal, much less refutation. Fallacies are as worthless as landwalls that do nothing to promote the general welfare.

 

[code1211]

You seem devoid of valid arguments for rebuttal, much less refutation. Fallacies are as worthless as landwalls that do nothing to promote the general welfare.

I didn't state any fallacies and did not mention landwalls.

I stated actual, empirical, scientific facts and you ran in the opposite direction.

Why?

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't state any fallacies and did not mention landwalls.

I stated actual, empirical, scientific facts and you ran in the opposite direction.

Why?

lol. I provided self-evident truths; you have no valid rebuttals.

 

[code1211]

lol. I provided self-evident truths; you have no valid rebuttals.

I have to admit that I'm only reading the responses you have made to me.

What self evident truths that you have presented run counter to real world, empirical science?

Whatever you may predict as a dire consequence, this FACT remains: The world has been warmer during the Holocene, in every one of the interglacials in the last half million years and has been warmer at lower CO2 levels than today's.

THOSE are self evident truths. What you present are Chicken Little scare tactic predictions.

Now, if CO2 is the absolute, most powerful driver of global temperature, why does it not seem to dictate the rise and fall of global temperature across the last half million years?

 

[Surface Detail]

I have to admit that I'm only reading the responses you have made to me.

What self evident truths that you have presented run counter to real world, empirical science?

Whatever you may predict as a dire consequence, this FACT remains: The world has been warmer during the Holocene, in every one of the interglacials in the last half million years and has been warmer at lower CO2 levels than today's.

THOSE are self evident truths. What you present are Chicken Little scare tactic predictions.

Now, if CO2 is the absolute, most powerful driver of global temperature, why does it not seem to dictate the rise and fall of global temperature across the last half million years?

The bit you're missing there is the fact that the temperature of the world has yet to catch up with the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human emissions. It's like saying that engine size has no effect on the top speed of a car after comparing the speed of a Citroen 2CV that has been accelerating for 5 minutes with that of a Ferrari that started from zero 2 seconds ago.

 

[danielpalos]

I have to admit that I'm only reading the responses you have made to me.

What self evident truths that you have presented run counter to real world, empirical science?

Whatever you may predict as a dire consequence, this FACT remains: The world has been warmer during the Holocene, in every one of the interglacials in the last half million years and has been warmer at lower CO2 levels than today's.

THOSE are self evident truths. What you present are Chicken Little scare tactic predictions.

Now, if CO2 is the absolute, most powerful driver of global temperature, why does it not seem to dictate the rise and fall of global temperature across the last half million years?

We have a Corp of Engineers. We can use real engineering solutions now to promote the general welfare now.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I'd start taking it seriously if those harping on the dangers actually acted like CO2 was a threat. No more big confabs, all tele conferences, no more big yachts, big houses, private planes etc. Till the Limousine CO2 Fighters practice what they preach I just can't take it seriously.

Fair comment.