We have five days to live according to scientists.

I'm looking forward to swooping in and buying beachfront property at pennies on the dollar as woke people start to sell of ahead of sea level rise.

Has the mass evacuation of Martha's Vineyard begun yet?

We should all have Al Gore's carbon footprint.

If there is 97% agreement of ACGCC, why don't those who agree just do what needs to be done voluntarily?
Why do they insist on waiting to do anything unless they can compel the 3% of climate denying hold outs to do it too?

It seems that the only thing that eco-doomsayers agree on is that the solution must be compulsory.

The truth is, when I consider what they do, and not what they say, I determine that they don't believe what they say.
When I consider that they won't do what they say must be done unless they can compel everyone else to do it too,
I determine that there's just not enough of them to make a difference, and they know it.

 

Meanwhile Australia is on fire, Europe is covered with refugees, and the U.S. has to build a wall to keep Hispanics out. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Actually, that all depends on who you ask. NASA and others are reporting that the planet is getting more green.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#7f09d82a6e13

But even if what you say is true, you expect me to take seriously a period of 20-30 years? Really?

This is why I laugh at this arrogance. 20-30 years, over the life of the planet. Tell me, what 20-30 years between 1300-1800 to use as the "normal" for that time period? What similar period between 900-1200? What is the norm, seeing Buffalo NY under 8 feet of snow, or having an almost snow-free winter? Because both of those have happened in recent years. One, then the other, then the other again.

This is why I laugh. As I said many times, I am a geologist in training, I do not look at years or even decades. Even centuries barely notice on how I view the planet, it is generally in a scale of tens of thousands of years at the least. To me, this silliness is like demanding I take a temperature reading in my house, and that then becomes the "normal".

And I notice you do not even seem to give a damn about deforestation, I guess that does not matter to you. That is a shame.

What destructive effects on sea level rise? OK, now I know I am dealing with somebody that does not get it.

I remember a few years ago when one of the "doomsayers" was talking about that very topic. And even though we have been hearing about this for decades, we have yet to see it. New York, San Francisco, all coastal areas would be underwater by 2025 some were predicting a few decades ago (if it was not a new ice age), but none of that has happened yet. In fact, the amount of rise on average has been remarkably stable for tens of thousands of years.

But my favorite was watching one of the talking head doomsayers talking about how much the sea levels were going to rise when the Arctic Ice Cap finally melted. He went on and on about San Francisco, London, Tokyo, and other modern cities being completely underwater, and the "journalist" was eating it all up, and asking what we can do to stop that from happening.

Clue #1, the sea has been rising for over 30,000 years.
Clue #2, it has not appreciably changed in speed since it slowed down during the Little Ice Age, it is actually increasing less than it did during the MCO.
Clue 3, when you hear about "sea level rise", are you asking the right questions to even try to verify the claim, or are you just nodding and going "Oh yes!"? Myself, it is always the former about anything. But I bet you do the latter. In fact, I bet you can not even tell me the main cause of sea level rise. Or why in Norway sea level is actually dropping.

 

Guess what? Most areas of the planet have ecologies designed to burn. In fact, in most of them major fires are actually required in order to complete the "circle of life". And if it is anything that conservationists are now starting to realize, you can only put off the fires for so long. For over a century, people have had the mindset that "fire is bad", and stopped it whenever they could. But now in the last decade or so as fires get worse and worse we are realizing that is the wrong way to look at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ecology

The eucalyptus is an amazing tree, and anybody who was around for the Berkley Hills Fire in 1991 knows all to well what they are like in a fire. Quite literally, they explode. The oils boil, and get so hot the tree bursts, and spreads burning tree pitch in all directions. A great many cities in California how forbid the planting of this tree for this very reason.

But here is another thing about that tree. Without fire it can not reproduce. And the explosion is believed to be an adaptation, as the seeds require burning to be able to germinate and the exploding oils are believed to be a spreading mechanism.

And this is not even unique. There are a lot of species of trees that can not reproduce without fire. And if anything, it should be realized you can never end fire. And the longer you put it off, the worse it will be when things do start to burn. California has learned that the hard way in recent years, yet the lack of forest management continues.

Yes, Australia is burning. And I bet in most areas it is decades past due. And yes, it looks horrible now. And finally, I bet in a century it will grow back, stronger and healthier than ever before. And hopefully in the future they will not rush out to crush any fires that start, but watch and control those burns, and not let it get this bad in the future.

 

The truth is, you don't. You make up strawmen about what we do, in order to justify being a parasite.

The funny thing is how you think it's not obvious. We've seen your freeloader act thousands of times before. It's nothing new or original.

 

You depend a lot on the fallacy of incredulity. You can't understand something, so you assume all others must be equally handicapped. However, we do understand it, and we can clearly see where you mess up.

Irrelevant to the current unprecedented rate of temperature increase. The baseline doesn't matter. The rate does.

Fascinating, a geologist who can't understand averages and trends.

By your loopy "if it happened once naturally, then humans can't affect it!" standard, since forest fires used to always occur naturally, then human-caused forest fires aren't possible. Irrational logic like that is why you're not taken seriously. Intelligent people understand that what happened in the past has no bearing on whether humans can be affecting it in the present.

If you can't address what I actually say, just say so. Don't make up crazy stories about what I supposedly said.

You seem to base your views entirely on media hysteria, instead of actual science.

It's your side that has been predicting "new ice age any day now!" continuously for the past 40 years. The denier Holy Ice Age never arrives, but they don't care. They still have faith that it will be here soon. Doomsday cult are like that. Each time icy armageddon fails to arrive, they just push back the date. That's why you're considered a joke, because you've gotten everything wrong for over 40 years running now. If you want to stop the laughter, you have to stop failing.

In contrast, the rational people have gotten everything right over that period. While your side was pushing an ice age, we were pointing out that strong warming would be coming. We have credibility because we've earned it through a history of correct predictions.

No. In 1800, sea level rise was near zero. Now it's like 3.3 mm/year and accelerating.

Where do you get this nonsense? It's completely divorced from reality.

Do tell us, what are the right questions? Both the tidal gauges and satellites verify the current fast and accelerating sea level rise, following a period of level seas. The historical records and proxies record the past rate. Do you have some better source? Did you see a conspiracy blog that said otherwise?

And yet all you talk about is what you remember seeing on TV.

Given that you get all the basics wrong, I'm betting you get the basics wrong about those things. But the quick answers: 1: Thermal expansion of sea water 2: Post-glacial uplift and loss of mass/gravity around Greenland.

 

... due to arson and improper forest management...

...due to their unwillingness to have and enforce borders.

Racism. Not all illegal immigrants are Hispanics.

The wall is being built to deter illegal immigration, regardless of whatever the illegal immigrant's genetic traits might be.

Agreed... So, open your eyes?

 

If its so "obvious", why isn't beachfront property going down in value? Why isn't there a sell-off on Martha's Vineyard?

 

Good questions!

 

Really? Where is the hard data to confirm that? Oh, right. There is none, only some speculation.

Oh, I understand them very well. I also know that there are huge gaps, no matter what time period we are talking about prior to the invention of modern instruments. The best we can do is simply speculate, based on what evidence there is. But ultimately that is all it is, speculation.

The number of forest fires a year due to nature is constantly changing. But many of the largest fires on record are actually caused by lightning.

Oh, and humans have been causing fires on purpose for tens of thousands of years. "Slash and burn" agriculture is hardly new, even the Pre-Columbian Indians used it. It was done because even though their level of agriculture was primitive, they knew that most wildlife like deer, turkeys, and other game animals congregated to clearings. And the easiest way to make a clearing was simply to burn part of the forest down.

ANd it is funny, in one moment you scream about the "past record" and how everything now is unprecedented. Then you turn right around and say the past does not matter. Look, pick one or the other. Either the past matters, or it does not. You can not just pick and choose based on the answers you want to see.

Actually, I could not give a damn what the "media" says. Most are idiots, and only read from scripts. That is why they miss so much of the science.

Hence, my laughing when they occasionally scream about the oceans rising from the melting of the Artcic Ice Cap.

Oh, and here is a starting point. Kenneth Watt, from his first Earth Day speech in 1970:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

In fact, what is seen by many as the "Landmark day about the environment" is often seen as a complete joke. It was full of nothing but doom and gloom predictions, often seeing millions dead by 2000. And amazingly, not only did none of them happen, often times the reverse.

Here is the funny thing, I am old enough to remember all the "New Ice Age Hype", it was everywhere in the 1970's. And even more amazing, the exact same things they were screaming then (no coal, no gas engines, green power) were the exact same solutions then as they are now.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

And you say I am going from conspiracy sites. Sorry, you can't use that just because you do not like the evidence I provide. And the funny thing is, I had my geology teacher back in 1979 explain to me that there was no new ice age, and that the warming would even accelerate. And amazingly, he was right. Even though most "scientists" were saying the opposite.

In contrast, the rational people have gotten everything right over that period. While your side was pushing an ice age, we were pointing out that strong warming would be coming. We have credibility because we've earned it through a history of correct predictions.

Well no duh, science. We were in the Little Ice Age, and the sea level hardly changed for hundreds of years. There were fractional changes, but it had almost nothing to do with ice caps, snowfall, or anything else even remotely like that. In fact, the largest cause of sea level rise has nothing to do with melting ice at all.

The first is correct, which is why I laugh when people go crazy about "melting icecaps". But the oceans have been warming for over 15,000 years. In fact, us geologists know that is the major cause of the climate next to the sun. And for the end, most believe it was kickstarted primarily by multiple "Meltwater Pulses" that dumped fresh water into the ocean, changing it's salinity. The ending had been going for thousands of years already, and the leading candidate was a series of pulses of fresh water from the Great Lakes as various glacial dams were created, then collapsed. There are believed to have been at least 4, each one being of a volume that equaled 50% of normal meltwater all hitting the oceans in a short amount of time.

Loss of mass is not it, and the correct term is "Post-Glacial Rebound". And it has done some interesting things to our geography. For example, most of Finland was below sea level during the last ice age. And I am talking contemporary sea level of the time, not the current one. And we are still rising in North and South America as well as most areas of Northern Europe. Even half of England is still rising, as well as most of Scotland. The only parts "sinking" are sinking for the same reason that New Orleans is sinking. It is not actual "land", but built up layers of silt,which stopped when we channeled the rivers and ended the depositing of more silt. And we know it will continue in the range of 1-1.5 cm per year for another 10,000 years or so.

But the loss of mass in Greenland causing lifting in Europe? And BTW, we know that since 2017 Greenland has actually been increasing in the amount of ice. Oh, and we know that Crater Glacier has been gaining ice at the rate of around 15 feet per year since 2008. And it had actually been growing for decades prior to that, but the multiple eruptions of Mt. St. Helens keeps melting it. But it has been there since shortly after the 1980 eruption ended, and is still growing.

Amazing, a glacier in North America that is actually growing every year. And on top of a still active volcano. Eruptions still often melt off huge chunks of it, but every time it just comes right back and grows even larger afterwards.

 

Well, here is the interesting thing about geology. It helps a person understand why and how the planet looks the way it does.

Now most of that island, like Manhattan, and other land areas are actually built on glacial moraines. This is the dirt and rocks pushed in front of a glacier, and then left behind when it recedes. And sea level change in most of New England has been amazingly stable. However, Boston is indeed sinking. But this has little to do with sea level rise, it is because the land under huge areas of the city is sinking. We know that simply by looking at a Colonial map of the city.

Back then the city had only recently become an isthmus, where as it had been an island prior to around 5kya. And even by the time of the Revolution, the area had been expanded to almost double it's Pre-Columbian size. The same with Manhattan and San Francisco.

San Francisco is amazing, as if you study the original geography. The original "Town Square" is known as Portsmouth Square, and today it is in the center of Chinatown, over a mile from the bay. Back then, the bay was actually just down a small hill from there, and the original coastline ran roughly where Montgomery Street is today. And just like any other coastal city based upon silt or fill, it is sinking. The dirt and debris are compacting, causing it to sink. The only reason this is not happening so much to Seattle is that it is largely fill that was not dumped into the bay, but added on top of dry land. That is why most of the city is 10-30 feet above the level of "Old Seattle", and other than minor fill in a few places the city still has the same size as when it was founded.

 

Can't argue the point when the other side always has an alternative explanation for climate change predictions coming true. When someone says the ocean is not rising but the land is sinking I have no argument. I can't argue with "alternative facts".

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...aRB5eiC3hD2QRz9ay&ampcf=1&cshid=1580869023129

 

If you're going to openly deny the hard data concerning the current fast temperature rise, what's the point in talking with you?

There's that fallacy of incredulity again. You don't understand the science, so you assume nobody can understand it.

But how can that be? After all, you told us that nature is the only thing that can control anything.

Nope, I never said or implied such a thing. I just pointed how you're using a fallacy of the single cause.

And I never do. I leave that to you. First you tell us that things that used to only happen naturally in the past can't be caused by humans in the present. Now you tell us humans caused forest fires, which in the past only happen naturally. So which is it? If humans do cause forest fires, then your "nature can be the only cause of things that used to happen only naturally" fallacy is debunked.

Was Kenneth Watt a climate scientist? No? Then nobody cares.

And it was pushed by your side. And still is.

As you just posted a link to WUWT, you proved that conclusively.

Most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting warming.

You've not kept up with current science. As Greenland loses ice, it loses mass, so the gravity of that area lessens. Greenland no longer pulls on the surrounding oceans as much, so the ocean moves away from the Greenland area, and sea level there drops. Norway is in that area.

Not true. I suspect you're misreading the Danish snowfall/melt graphs, which do _not_ include glaciers losing mass to the sea by calving. That process has greatly accelerated.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2019

A fine cherrypicking fallacy. Nobody ever said all glaciers would decrease.

 

But the problem is, in many places the land is sinking. This is a well known fact, and not "alternative facts". In the same way that in other areas the land is actually rising. This is also a fact, and not "alternative facts".

 

Ummm

Wow!

How wrong can you get?

For a start no, they don’t “take the temperature from the 1800s and you would know that if you had read the IPCC report

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

So although the 1800s is referred to as the instrumental era they also use paleoclimatology record to determine global temperatures - just like you did when you asserted there was an ice age and a medieval warm period

Difference is they are using real science not blog posts

 

Actually, Kenneth Watt proclaims himself as one of the leading "Anthropological Climatologists" on the planet.

Oh, and here is another reference to his 1970 quotes.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2000-05-02/html/CREC-2000-05-02-pt1-PgH2346-2.htm

Then there is this rather contemporary report from Newsweek in 1975.

https://web.archive.org/web/2018062...s.com/yal7w1ekg3t0s2a/images/1-9c290725b9.jpg

And of course I can also go on about the prediction of "experts" in 1990 that predicted a global nuclear winter type catastrophe, which was for sure going to impact the world if Iraq blew up the oil wells in Kuwait. Of course, they did that and there were no global effects.

And of course, there is this video. Made in 1977 and seen by millions. "Conspiracy" I am sure, and "my side".

[video]

Sorry, just by throwing around such divisive nonsense you loose a lot of credibility. I for one am not actually making a claim one way or another. As I said many times, my view is purely "long term", and the events of a decade or century mean little. But one thing that is constant, is that the climate changes. It has always changed, it will always change. The MCO and LIA are both proof of that. And ironically, I actually considered the "New Ice Age" screamers just as doubtfully as I do the "Global Armageddon" screamers today. ANd many of them are the exact same people.

And all the predictions of more and worse hurricanes every year in the early 2000's, I guess those never happened either?

You see, this is the difference between real science and faith. And I use "faith" in the religious sense. I admit things are changing, always changed, and will always change. It may go up, it may go down, it may stay the same. But others treat it like a religion, and the prophets say it is doing one thing, and they all fight to convert everybody to accept their belief. ANd any that refuse to buy 100% into it are heretics and must be destroyed.

Even to the extend of claiming the past never happened.

 

Which is known as "speculation". And do not think I am dismissing it, I simply recognize exactly what it is. They assemble data and information, and speculate what the climate was based upon that. It is not a bad thing, that is what most of science is. But nevertheless it is speculation, and not direct evidence.

And you can not confuse the two. And speculation does not give the entire picture, and is less and less accurate the further back it goes. This also is just a fact, and any scientist that says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

Humans came after T. Rex. This is a fact, we know it because of the huge gap between the Upper Cretaceous period and today. But did the T. Rex feed on the Ankisosaurus? The fact is, we have no idea. The fossil record is to incomplete so we have no way of knowing. Now of course paleontologists do speculate that they did not, that T. Rex evolved millions of years later. But we just do not know fo0r sure, and likely never will.

And no, there is no "assertation" that those 2 periods I described happened. We know for a fact they did, both from first hand writings of the era, as well as geological evidence. It is a fact that the LIA caused glaciers to expand, you are really trying hard to prove something I am not sure what in saying it is only an assertation.

 

And can somebody please answer me this?

Just because somebody either does not agree, or is not convinced, why do some in here simply assume they are stupid and "do not understand"?

This is why I find it increasingly difficult to take these kinds of discussions seriously, and dismiss them. In most areas of science, the idea is to actually encourage dissent, and to postulate other theories and ideas. But only in this topic do I see people actually hostile, insulting, and dismissive when people do not completely agree.

And here is the really funny thing, in a great many ways I actually agree. This is actually why I laugh at such people, they insult me and even when I say I agree with them in most areas, they insult me when I challenge them with the contradictions.

And to give an idea, I have said my belief earlier, and been dismissed. But here is what I am looking at:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

And here is the thing, this is a compounding problem. Cut more trees, more CO2 released, less trees to absorb it again. Cut even more trees, even more CO2 released, even less to absorb it than the year or decade before. This is why I say over and over the planet is warming. But we have to worry about the solution, which is to stop the massive deforestation the planet is experiencing.

But holy hell, it is like I am apostate when I say that I believe in the problem, but I see the solution completely differently. It is like "Die heretic! Burn in hell!"

That is not science, that is fanaticism. And I do not take fanatics seriously, I largely dismiss them. Not because their views differ from mine, but because they are blind idiots taht dismiss anybody that does not agree with them.

 

Yes, in some places land is sinking and some places land is rising. This is not the the issue. The issue in this case is sea level rise. Is the sea level rising or falling? If so why. If you claim land is sinking and sea level is not rising it is an alternative fact, a fallacy, if in fact the sea level is rising. If and when Britain becomes colder due to the slowdown in the ocean currents due to global warming a colder Britain will be evidence of said warming and not evidence against it. And yes Britain has had cold winters in the past.

 

There are ways of providing direct evidence of past events such as tree ring data and fossil evidence. When I lived in Indiana they said the land was once covered by a shallow inland sea and it seemed to be more than speculation because I could find fossils of sea shells and aquatic plants in the local rocks and gravel. It is also said that the area was once covered in ice and that the ice deposited dirt and rock from Canada. Igneous rock , smooth and rounded , support this. Plus the fact that no evidence of volcanic activity is present. Indiana is pretty flat. Speculation... I think it is more than that.

 

Have you any links to research on this “well known fact”?

l am merely pointing out you are dismissing “speculation on the basis that you think your speculation is better than the scientists who have been studying the issue for years.

Now did you check the citations to see the evidence for yourself?

 

Because I see no evidence that you HAVE read the actual evidence and are just not parroting talking points from right wing blogs

Where are your citations?