Were you going to cite something? You complain about NASA going outside its remit. And, now you are claiming they aren't delving into the geology of the world's coastlines?? I see no false information. As confirmed by agencies in other nations both by surface and satellites, they have created highly accurate information. I mean that sea level rise is an understatement of the threat to our coastlines. As you point, the land level measurements that NASA makes are contributors. Other contributors are relatively local phenomena, such as geological movement up or down, pumping oil and water, settling of deltas, etc. These movements are almost all in a downward direction and get added to sea level rise in impacting coastal regions.
I did. You obviously didn’t examine it very well. They are delving into geology of coastlines. They just aren’t being upfront with the public about the importance of warming vs. subsidence. Did I say anything about false information? No. Please brush up on your reading comprehension. Oh, what do you think is more of a threat? Yes. And there are things we can do today to slow subsidence. But the public (including you) are unaware of the problem until someone like me educates on the subject. Because even though NASA is studying and collecting data on it they are not reporting on it. Just reporting the far less relevant warming aspect because it fits a narrative. There is no interest in solving the solvable problem of subsidence but laser focus on the currently unsolvable less important problem of warming. Only people who care more about false narratives and denial of science than saving lives and property are OK with this.
There is NO question that sea rise is of serious importance. It affects the entire coastlines of the world. Subsidence is absolutely NOT easy to reduce. That would require work along the entire world's coastlines. In NOLA, the pumping of oil and the settling of the delta are significant contributors. Neither of those is anywhere CLOSE to being easy to reduce.
But you said sea rise is an understatement to the threat of our coastlines. What do you mean by that? Oh no! Work! Aren’t you the guy trying to get me to support building sea walls? Is that not work? Doesn’t replacing fossil fuels require work? Some more education for you. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/land-subsidence#overview https://ready.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/hazards/subsidence/ You can work to SOLVE problems or WORK putting band aids on the problem. I prefer solutions to band aids. Do you know what oxidation of organic soils produces? LOL
Your logic does not really follow. You just made a big jump in your reasoning. Where exactly is the logic to back it up? This sounds like another logical fallacy. The people to whom you are in all likelihood calling "science deniers" are not repudiating "science" in the same sort of way you described science. For example, you are unable to carry out an experiment at will to "prove" that the theory of evolution is correct.
How many times do I need to point out that YOU believe that, not just me. It's an understatement, because there are other threats as well, and they are additive. No. I'm not against it, but one can't build walls around all the coastal assets we have throughout the world - or in the USA. You could look at decisions on NOLA after Katrina or google the city of Miami Beach, FL. They try pumping, too. And, we're an incredibly wealthy nation. [QUOTE] Some more education for you. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/land-subsidence#overview https://ready.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/hazards/subsidence/ You can work to SOLVE problems or WORK putting band aids on the problem. I prefer solutions to band aids. Do you know what oxidation of organic soils produces? LOL[/QUOTE] Your whole effort is to support your idea that YOU are smarter than everyone - NASA, NOAA, me, whomever. I'm fully aware of subsidence - which also comes from pumping OIL by the way. Look into NOLA. Walls are stupendously expensive band aids in the areas where they are needed most: https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Miss...bor-Tributaries-Focus-Area-Feasibility-Study/ You could look at the Chesapeake Bay project for sea rise. Or, FL - such as the city of Miami Beach. I have beautiful island property on a major inland sea area. Nobody is going to come and build a wall on my beach front - or save the towns near the shore, either. And, this is the USA. The larger issues are what this means for places such as Bangladesh, etc. NASA doesn't do this stuff. They inform people of what the sea rise is going to be.
Your whole effort is to support your idea that YOU are smarter than everyone - NASA, NOAA, me, whomever. I'm fully aware of subsidence - which also comes from pumping OIL by the way. Look into NOLA. Walls are stupendously expensive band aids in the areas where they are needed most: https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Miss...bor-Tributaries-Focus-Area-Feasibility-Study/ You could look at the Chesapeake Bay project for sea rise. Or, FL - such as the city of Miami Beach. I have beautiful island property on a major inland sea area. Nobody is going to come and build a wall on my beach front - or save the towns near the shore, either. And, this is the USA. The larger issues are what this means for places such as Bangladesh, etc. NASA doesn't do this stuff. They inform people of what the sea rise is going to be. 1) The most substantial threat is from subsidence in the areas YOU brought into the discussion. Subsidence makes high tides more dangerous, storm surges more dangerous, absolute sea rise more dangerous, etc. Subsidence has the greatest effect in these areas. I see no need to build sea walls around all coastal assets. I’m the one educating YOU on NOLA. Until this exchange you thought NOLA was in danger from sea level rise caused by warming. That’s so far down the list of causes as to be insignificant. We haven’t discussed the main reason NOLA is sinking. It’s because of flood control. Yes, fossil fuel extraction has played a part. But the main cause BY FAR is anthropogenic hydrological meddling. Yes, Miami Beach made bad decisions just like NOLA. When you convert wetlands to building sites and then pump from the aquifer below you are going to have problems. Pumping stations are the band aid. There is a very novel solution. Stop building in places we KNOW are going to sink like a rock. Nah, it’s more fun to build it and then blame climate change when it floods. 2) My effort is to provide information to the public they will never see if they only consume information from IPCC or NASA. I appreciate you continually complimenting my intelligence. But I’ll reiterate because you are slow on the uptake. I’m not smarter than any other scientist. There are teachers involved in education from pre-k to doctorate programs in Universities. When they teach a student something the student was previously unaware of we don’t bash the teacher for claiming to be smarter than everyone. I’m just teaching—teaching things you and others will not be exposed to anywhere else. I’m not smarter, I just CHOOSE to fill in gaps created by other educational entities. You are becoming aware of subsidence and how it is more important in the context of coastal flooding than absolute sea level rise from natural and anthropogenic warming. Yes, any time we pump matter from under unstable land it has an effect. Water, oil, gas all contribute. But according to the USGS 80% of US subsidence is a result of water extraction. A now defunct power plant was responsible for very severe local subsidence in NOLA in the past. Just from pumping groundwater for operations. If NOLA is serious about staying afloat literally and figuratively they can address extraction of all underground resources. The replacement power plant uses surface water. Easy peasy. 3) Walls. Yes, very expensive band aids. Especially when we could buy solutions instead. There are consequences no matter where you choose to own property. We get a tornado once in a while here. Thankfully I chose wisely and invested in land that gains value as the climate changes. But yours will as well. 4) If you are concerned about Bangladesh you can refrain from destroying their best defense against coastal flooding. Natural sea walls that pay for themselves many times over. Bangladesh’s problems are not primarily driven by CO2 or warming either. 5) NASA has become involved in things it wasn’t created to do. That’s water under the bridge. The problem with NASA is that they create a false narrative that warming from CO2 is the primary threat to the country and humanity. They collect data contradicting this narrative and choose to suppress it. They have no problem stating warming is a threat even in cases where it isn’t, but fail to elaborate on other more serious threats they collect data on. I don’t expect you to care. These posts are more for third parties to learn from. For people interested in basing their opinions and decisions on full knowledge of the subject, not just a narrow subset of information chosen for them by others. I don’t have the energy to fix the formatting as you missed the edit window. I’ve done the same a few times so no worries.
YOU are the one who claims to have knowledge superior to NASA, NOAA, IPCC and the long, long list of science organizations who disagree with you. I don't claim personal knowledge.
I seriously doubt I have knowledge those organizations don’t have. I’ve certainly never claimed to have knowledge they don’t have. The problem isn’t that they lack knowledge. It’s that they intentionally make sure YOU lack knowledge. And it worked well apparently. Wow. No personal knowledge. That helps explain things….you should remedy that. Maybe readmore. I’m so glad I’m paying for public education so I can meet adults online who claim no personal knowledge. I suggest educating yourself a bit. It’s not too late and I guarantee you will benefit in many ways. You will certainly be less susceptible to false narratives and appeal to emotion and authority arguments.
Sorry, you claim the knowledge to propose a stupendous world wide conspiracy theory for which you present no evidence. I make every effort to present what experts agree on, and ensure that I can cite that. That's not the same as pretending that I am the expert. No matter what I know, I am not the expert.
I’m not an expert in the field of climate science. I’m just presenting the work of those who are experts in their respective fields. I only have expert knowledge in one field related to climate science—production of agricultural products. The studies I present on human mortality are not mine nor do I claim to be an expert on that subject. I just show the science to you that you won’t find in your curated sources. The studies I present on forestry in relation to climate change are not my studies nor do I claim expertise. I just show you and others studies you won’t see in your curated sources of information. The information I’ve presented from the USGS and NASA is not mine nor do I claim expertise in subsidence. I’ve just studied the subject quite a bit so I know where to find information you won’t see in your curated sources. There is no worldwide conspiracy and you are the only one who alludes to one. The fact remains almost ALL sources of information are curated. Most people, you included do not study outside very narrow curated sources so much of climate science (well all science) is unknown to you. I’m just educating you. And remember, we don’t accuse third grade teachers of claiming to be smarter than everyone just because they expose third graders to previously unknown information. You can not possibly know what experts agree on when you have no knowledge of half the existing information.
In that I do agree, as that was never in the scope of the mission for NASA when it was created. In fact, that is the job of the NOAA. But few people know who or what NOAA is, so NASA seems more authoritative. Plus many simply tend to distrust anything that comes from any of the Uniform branches of the US.
Yes, climate would be more in NOAA’s wheelhouse. I love NOAA’s hourly weather forecasts. They include dew point, relative humidity, wind speed/direction etc. and are very handy in my line of work.
You use the word "curated" as a pejorative. You attempt to attach distrust to the sources showing climate change as a result of human activity by implying that they are "cherry picked" But aren't your sources just as "curated"? Aren't you just as guilty as anyone else of cherry picking which sources you count as credible? The reason you are able to do this in this forum and make it sound as if there is actual controversy on this topic is because this forum is a bunch of non experts in the field and the opinion of the biggest posters on this topic are split almost 50/50. Or, as you say, "you have no knowledge of half the existing information". It isn't half, it isn't anywhere near "half" The actual scientists who study this and are the actual experts on this topic are OVERWHELMINGLY on the side of human caused climate change. That the solution to the problem lies in reducing CO2 emissions. There may be other things that can be done...but the major threat is from CO2 emissions. So the question isn't why do you reject the idea of CO2 being the issue that needs to be addressed...you've admitted you are not an expert on the subject. The question is why do you reject what the overwhelming majority of climate experts say needs to be done?
NASA's Mission from their own website. Mission: NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery. Who cares what their mission was when they were created? When the Department of War (now Department of Defense) was created do you think their mission included protection of American air space? Do you think their mission included "nuclear deterrence" ? Do you think their mission included cyber warfare? Protection of our assets in earth's orbit? As our knowledge expands the mission of many agencies change. I agree that many distrust anything that comes from any of the Uniform branches...but that is not a good thing. Distrust ANYTHING? How do you determine what to trust then? If you're going to automatically distrust anything from source X then does that mean you automatically trust source Y simply because it is contra to what X says?
You would do well to actually read my posts. Since you seem to miss most of the actual content that is pertinent to your fallacious arguments here is where that has been addressed. The term “curated” may be pejorative in your mind, but I’ve certainly been clear my use of the term is not intended to be so. I openly state all over PF my job is to provide evidence you won’t see other places. Clearly that is the definition of curation. As I point out to others, we don’t criticize third grade teachers for having lesson plans (curating) or for presenting information the students are unaware of. Teaching requires determining what knowledge is lacking in the student and then providing information to fill that void. That’s essentially what I’m doing here. You again infer I’m denying AGW or other anthropogenic climate changes. Why? Please quote where I’ve posited mistrust in organizations referring to anthropogenic climate change. Peer reviewed studies and verifiable data sets are credible. That’s why I rely on them exclusively on matters of science, not opinions of others. The poster I was conversing with admits to getting his information from the IPCC. They provide somewhere around half the information one needs to have a working knowledge of climate change. Probably about one fourth or less of the information needed to have a working knowledge of mitigations. I’m unconcerned with the makeup of PF. Im only concerned with providing ALL of PF with information not included in mainstream sources of climate information. I will again point out, there can be no controversy on information you are completely unaware of. What threat? How many times do I have to point out I’m well aware of climate change. In fact I routinely point out sources of AGW and other anthropogenic climate changes that you and others are unaware of. First you must define what you believe is the “threat”. I can’t address generalities like that. But to start with, you are completely incorrect. The major issue with atmospheric CO2 concentrations increasing is not gross emissions. It’s the net CO2 additions to the atmosphere after accounting for all sequestrations. You are already operating from a false premise. When a cyclic system is out of balance, it can be balanced in more than one way. To claim emissions are “the problem “ is admission you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the carbon cycle and of the history of that cycle on this planet. Done about what? You first have to define what you have been led to believe the “problems” are that need to be “fixed”. Can you quote these overwhelming majority of climate scientists? I’m afraid you may be confusing science with politicians, governments, and journalists. Have you ever seen this statement? “ The deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved. The scale and timing of deployment will depend on the trajectories of gross emission reductions in different sectors. Upscaling the deployment of CDR depends on developing effective approaches to address feasibility and sustainability constraints especially at large scales. “ Just out of curiosity, where do you get your information on climate and climate change?
CO2 emissions IS net CO2 emissions. Without human CO2 emissions then the CO2 cycle remains in a state of equilibrium. By the addition of human CO2 emissions (and the deforestation caused by humans reducing the removal of atmospheric CO2) has thrown that equilibrium out of balance. Thus CO2 concentrations are rising.
No, emissions are emissions and sequestrations (sinks)are sequestrations (sinks). We can reduce emissions (yes, from fossil fuel and other sources). But we can also balance the cycle by sequestration of more carbon, not just by reducing emissions. In fact, we could balance the cycle without reducing fossil fuel source emissions if we had the will. Again, you focus ONLY on emissions to balance the cycle. This is a false premise based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. You are at the head of the class with your reference to deforestation, but it’s so much more than forests. Desertification of grasslands and monoculture agriculture and reduced plant diversity in natural savanna ecosystems/pasture systems all have huge implications in reduced potential for sequestration and for additions to net atmospheric CO2.
Oh bullshit, the CO2 level has always changed. Just as temperatures and almost everything else. This is the biggest lie involved in the Climate Change morons. They literally believe in a static Earth, where absolutely nothing changes ever. As it is yesterday, it should be today and again tomorrow. That is literally the most unscientific belief there is. We know that CO2 levels have changed, and have been changing since the planet formed. Only an absolute idiot or a liar would say anything otherwise. And know what I find most fascinating, in another thread you just screamed that "Conservatives" resist change. Yet, here is you and everybody else insisting that things never change. Even though the climate has always changed. Simple proof that you do not actually understand much, and just throw around names.
You may agree with my post here, but I want to make it more specific. NOAA is about studying our oceans. NASA is about above surface level, including what hits the Earth - be it asteroids, solar radiation, or whatever. They are not in disagreement about climate, in which both are seriously involved, as they study Earth.
NOAA is not just about studying oceans. Far from it. NOAA is the parent agency that superseded the weather bureau established by Congress in 1870. It’s also the agency that superseded the Environmental Science Services Administration established in 1965 as the first government agency tasked with studying climate. That administration was rolled into NOAA along with other agencies in 1970. NOAA is the primary US government agency involved (through actual tasking by Congress and past Presidents) with climatology and meteorology. Yes, NOAA studies oceans. And every other aspect of climate and weather. It’s their job.
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration You think this is the only time where Government agencies have overlapping missions?
Did I say anything, ANYTHING at all about overlapping missions? I just corrected the misinformation about NOAA being “about oceans”Mushroom was correct, few people have any idea what NOAA is or does.
Or even that it is a Uniform Service of the United States. Once again, something almost nobody knows about, as most tend to think there are only 5 uniform services.
OK. There is definitely significant overlap as one would hope. Science depends on hypotheses being tested in the widest range of approaches possible. Let's remember that NASA has a strong climate charter as well. They measure temperatures from Earth's surface to space. They study atmospheric chemistry, a topic that is central to the reason that Earth is warming. They are chartered to make major contributions to weather analysis.
