Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bobgnote, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which as I said is to be expected. You are taking a global thing and blowing it out of proportion without looking at all the data.

    [​IMG]

    Taken over thousands of years, the rise is still not as much and is about as fast as we saw 1,000 years ago at the start of the Medieval Warm Period. And we have yet to even hit that amount. People are talking about the "unexpected rise", completely forgetting that at the time they are looking, we were still in the Little Ice Age. Which was the lowest amount of rise in over 2,000 years.

    You can spin this in any way you like, but it can not be denied that the "chicken littles" are taking the data entirely out of context when looking at the history of the climate on this planet. And for all the screams of "highest temperatures ever", we know that is wrong because almost 1,000 years ago it was hotter than it is now.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  2. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Axial tilt of the planet and also orbital fluctuations play a big role that most of those with political agendas avoid, since it screws up a lot of simplistic propaganda memes. Guess what, changing heat patterns around the equator can 'change' a lot of climates around the entire planet.whoda thunk??? ....
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not even close. The end of that graph is way steeper.

    And that's after NoTricksZone chopped off the end of it to make the current sea level rise rise look slower.

    So, you're "it looks natural" claim fails, since it very clearly does not look like any past natural change.

    NoTricksZone certainly did some massive spinning, but that's not how rational people roll. The current fast warming and fast sea level rise has no modern historical precedent. You've got to go back to paleohistory and the end of the glacial age to see something similar. And given that we're not ending a glacial age, that's not a valid comparison either.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Right: no rational person would try to defend such an absurd post hoc fallacy.
    What nonsense. Of course sea level has risen since the Little Ice Age. What else would you expect when the earth naturally returns to more normal Holocene temperatures after the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years? Where is the empirical evidence that humans, specifically, caused the end of the Little Ice Age? There is none, of course.
     
    Farnsworth likes this.
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Because modern history does not go back far enough to include any period colder than the Little Ice Age.
    No, the graph shows you don't. The sea level increase during the Medieval Optimum ~1000 AD was indisputably similar.
    <yawn> So, the big climate expert is not aware of the fact that the Dark Age cooling was not nearly as severe as the Little Ice Age? Or maybe he is not aware that a wave with a deeper trough will also have a steeper rise to the next peak?
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the proxies do, and they're very good. That's why you'll now have up some conspiracy theory about how all the data is faked. If all the data didn't always contradict you, you wouldn't have to rely on conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

    You're telling everyone to believe your strange claims instead of their own lying eyes. That kind of gaslighting won't have any effect on the mentally stable. You can't tell a normal person that black is white and expect them to believe it.

    I'm not familiar with how physics works in your alternate-reality bubble, therefore I can't figure out what you're babbling about here.

    Say what? Again, you're not making any sense. Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you include prehistoric proxy data, your claim is just false: both temperature and sea level rose much faster at the end of the last Ice Age.
    You are babbling. And wrong.
    Actual empirical data do not contradict me. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    Are you trying for a record number of false statements in one line?
    No, I invite them to inspect the graph and confirm that the sea level rise around 1000 AD is similar to the modern one, though a bit smaller and slower because it starts from a higher baseline.
    You are making a false, absurd, and disingenuous claim about what anyone can see for themselves in the graph: the modern sea level increase is only significantly different from the medieval one in starting from a lower baseline. Any normal, honest person can see the similarity between sea level rise during the Medieval Optimum and during the modern one.
    False. It's an obvious point of system dynamics: a larger exogenous deflection from equilibrium produces a more energetic return to it.
     
  8. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And it's not the end of an ice age, so your deflection there looks really stupid. The current very fast sea level rise has no precedent in the historical record. Getting angry about that fact won't change it.

    So it's just like it, except it isn't. Do you ever listen to yourself?

    Like I said before, your "BELIEVE MY STORIES OVER YOUR LYING EYES" gaslighting only works with those who have already chosen to self-lobotomize.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. The person who really looks stupid because they have to deflect is the one who makes a misleading claim and then has to deflect when the relevant facts are identified.
    Because the Little Ice Age has no precedent in the historical record. A wave with a deeper trough has a steeper rise to the next peak.
    I only get angry at lies, not facts.
    I didn't say it was "just like it." You made that up. I said it was similar, which it clearly is.
    Of course. That's how I know you routinely make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me. See above.
    I invite readers to compare the sea level increase of ~1000CE with the 20th century increase, and note that the modern one is naturally steeper because it starts from a lower base. It is becoming more and more obvious that it is the AGW screamers who have been self-lobotomizing.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    728
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @mamooth

    What "global sea level" rise?

    How are you measuring "global sea level"? What valid reference point are you using?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By both tidal gauges and by the satellite measurements. They're in close agreement.

    I believe the IPCC currently uses the 1985-2005 sea level mean as the baseline. The specific years used don't really matter, as long as the baseline is specified.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you know this because of what exactly?

    those hunting for Witches 500 years ago. "It does not act like us and dress like us, so it must be a witch! Burn it!"

    And sorry, any time I see statements like anybody that is not applauding them is a liar or wrong is to be honest, an idiot. That is not how science works. However, that is how a religion works. "Agree with everything we say or we will burn you!" "We are right, anybody that does not agree with us is a heretic and should be burned!"

    And sorry, any time I see somebody take such a small period of time during the history of a planet that dates back billions of years and tries to scream what the "norm" is, I see them as an idiot. For the history of our planet, permanent polar ice caps are an aberration, only seen in the coldest periods of our history globally and geologically. So if you ask me, if the entire North Pole was to melt and become a year round waterway I would just shrug and say that is actually the normal conditional over the lifespan of the planet, because it is.

    Just like continents drift. A few million years ago when Alaska was still lower in the Pacific, there were palm tree forests along the Northern Coast, when it rested roughly where Anchorage is today. And trust me, I used to live in Anchorage, you will not see palm trees there (or much north of California). But there they were, which gives an idea how much hotter the planet was then when compared to now.

    Yet I hear things like "never before" and "unprecedented", by people who in reality do not have a frigging clue what they are talking about. You all are like cats after somebody changes the furniture, hissing and spitting because not everybody agrees to drink your snake oil.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because we know what past natural change looks like.

    You want to burn sea level change? I don't think that's possible.

    And I agree, you should stop thinking that way. However, I'm talking about science and the hard data, not your intolerant religious beliefs.

    None of that has anything to do with the fact that human-caused global warming is currently causing very fast sea level rise, and that it's absolutely not natural.

    You offer nothing but insults now. The data says you're wrong about everything, and the cult forbids you from admitting that, so deflection is the only option left to you.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, and because past natural change actually looks quite a lot like the recent change, we know the recent change is unlikely to be primarily unnatural.
    Sea level is not rising very fast, and global warming is not human caused. Your "facts" are just false in multiple ways.
    Meaningless because trivially true: even if only 1% of the warming were caused by increased CO2, it would be correct to say it is "not natural."
    No, that is just false.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We do? Then tell me, what is the natural level of the oceans?

    Should we have a Mediterranean Sea? Should there be a stretch of land between North and South America? Are Africa and Asia supposed to be connected by land? Should you be able to walk from France to Ireland?

    Each and every one of those I just listed is a known fact, proven over and over again in the geologic record. Which is "natural", and which is "not natural"? Face it, you are a reactionary Conservative, and consider any change to be absolutely wrong, and want everything to remain exactly as it is today and forever.

    Well, sorry, ain't gonna happen. The world will continue to change.

    And no, we do not know what "natural change" is like. Hell, we still do not know what causes the Ice Age cycles in the first place, what starts a glacial period and what ends it. And while we can make some rough estimates, the geologic record in no way gives us the kinds of details that many claim to have.

    Tree rings, ice cores, these are better than witch doctors casting bones in the sand and soothsayers telling the future from the innards of goats, but not really by a lot. They give a rough image, nothing more than that. And anybody claiming that it provides details is a liar. I have been studying things like this for over 40 years, and each year grow more and more amazed at the things I hear. All they do is extrapolate from what they see, it is not a hard fact that A causes B. In reality, they see B, and think because of that C is what they believe happened. And they know that there are huge gaps in the record, yet they fudge and make up data that they think is accurate and shove it in, and just hope that nobody notices.

    Think about this. We know the Greenland Ice Sheet dates back over 10 million years. We know this geologically as a fact. And we also know it has grown and shrunk a great many times over those millions of years. And at the same time, they claim that it provides a record of over 10 million years of the climate.

    Wait, what? Time for insertion of logic. For it to be that old, that means that it did nothing but grow during that time, no melting. Yes, the Antarctic sheet is older, over 45 million years old. But the Greenland one? Over 10 million years, and it never melted away, destroying a lot of the "data" that they claim to be recovering from it? We knew about the gaps 40 years ago, but I find it funny that nobody talks about them now. Where for periods of time the sheet melted, destroying huge amounts of data, which were then filled in afterwards with guesswork. But now, that is accepted as a fact, and nobody seems to question when people claim it is "millions of years of unbroken history".

    And recently I read a claim that they had claimed to have found ice in Greenland over 1 billion years old! Like really, WTF? Less than 600 million years ago Greenland was resting at the Equator, part of the Gondwana Supercontinent. Where global temperatures were much higher than today, and they found ice that survived hundreds of millions of years in the Equatorial band?

    Is it any wonder that I tend to think so many are idiots? Try to pass that off in a geology class, and they will laugh you out of the room. But for the modern believers in "Global Warming", it sounds perfectly reasonable.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  16. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    11,587
    Likes Received:
    10,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Easy answer, the lowest parts without protection.
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you think that's a sensible question? It's not. After all, we're not trying to keep the oceans "natural". We're trying to save our own butts.

    You're the only one here trying to make it into some hippy-dippy gaian thing. Everyone else is trying to save the people.

    The facts don't care about your feelings. All you have is feelings that the world must be conspiring against you.

    Suuuuuuure you did.

    That's your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome on display. Those who know the least about a topic tend to be the most certain they know everything.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020 at 9:15 AM
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    13,893
    Likes Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks the gods that Obama was able to buy his luxury island retreat on the Vineyard...... And uncle Al was able to buy his beach side in Malibu......

    Democrats don't actually believe in climate change.. It's the fear mechanism they use against foolish undereducated folks.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. If you were interested in saving butts, you would advocate adaptation to natural climate change, not futile attempts to stop it by laying human sacrifices -- those who need access to cheap energy -- on the altar of your Great God Green.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only vicious genocidal psychopaths advocate that, since it would kill so many.

    That means most deniers advocate it.

    Just how many millions of dead would it take to quench your perverse death-thirst? Can you give us a number? Is it, as we expect, actually in the billions?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020 at 12:21 PM
  21. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a reason you can only spout dopey conspiracy theories like that.

    The reason is that all the data contradicts the sacred dogma of your death-cult's religion.

    Remember, deniers, the facts don't care about your feelings.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020 at 12:21 PM
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    728
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Satellites do not measure global sea level. Tidal gauges do not either. There is no valid reference point. Land also has a tide.

    See above.
     
  23. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure they do, when averaged. The facts don't care about your feelings, or your inability to understand statistics.

    Any baseline is a valid reference point, as long as it's stated what the baseline is.

    And the baseline is irrelevant to the current rate of change, which is faster than anything we've seen before.

    Which is much smaller than the ocean tide, and not relevant to anything being discussed.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020 at 12:43 PM
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    728
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Averages are not measurements.

    A fact is not a universal truth nor is it a proof.

    YOU are the one denying statistics, not me. Inversion Fallacy.

    In order to have a "baseline", you first need to have a measurement with a valid reference point. You have neither a measurement NOR a valid reference point.

    You have no "change" either, as you do not have measurements using a valid reference point to derive said "change" from.

    It is COMPLETELY relevant to what is being discussed. It means that land is NOT a valid reference point, as it has a tide (it moves/shifts).
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have just won the award for dumbest scientific statement in history.

    Well, the baseline for the planet Earth is in the water, since it covers 3/4 of the surface. Therefore, the only true baseline that can ever be considered is on the surface in the middle of the ocean, and the only measurement that matters is the distance from the surface to the floor of the ocean.

    The baseline I decide to use from now on will be measured from inside of my fridge, where everything is a nice and constant 34 degrees.

    The fact is, that statement is about as far from a fact as a person can possibly get. The very fact that they have set the "baseline" right inside the "Little Ice Age" is what has so many like myself absolutely pulling our hair out. They actually set it during the period of coldest climate in over 5,000 years, then scream that is the norm and anything above it is wrong.

    Well, tell you what. I think it should be changed. To say 100CE. Which was the height of the Roman Warm Period. A period so warm that date trees could grow year round in Greece, and allowed large armies to cross the Alps as late as October. And during which caused a great many glaciers in Europe to completely vanish, until they formed again in the Little Ice Age.

    So let's take one of those warm periods, and use them as the baseline. Not one designed to cause fear in rising temperatures, based upon a baseline that is far to cold when looked at even during the last 2,000 years, let alone 10,000 years.

    Just the fact you actually said that and seem to believe it shows you know and understand nothing about how science actually works. You just love insulting people over and over again, just because they understand such basic things that you can not even hope to grasp.
     

Share This Page