Popular Post Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) On 2/8/2020 at 3:33 AM, IAMHERE said: Tell me about global warming when the wine industry in Britain is back to the level the Romans had when they were there. It was warmer then. The Roman Warm Period.... which followed the Minoan Warm Period. People didn't do as well during the cooler times between the warm periods. Just look at the disaster that the Little Ice Age (approx 1300 - 1850) was in Europe and North America and China... Can you believe some people actually want us to have that cooler climate return? ? Crazy... We're very lucky that we've warmed a bit since then. Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni addition 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlandtday Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 And how long have we been keeping records? Ridiculous to make such a claim. One wants to be cautious but a single dip in temps is not indicative of future trends. More data needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) On 2/8/2020 at 8:07 PM, jcsmith said: You can bury your head in the sand if you want Alex. But we are certainly contributing to the increase of CO2, that is undeniable. Ice ages are certainly cyclic but what does that matter? We are accelerating the progress of something that will be catastrophic to ourselves. Of course the people contributing the most to this are going to try to put out information that minimizes the blame to themselves. But that doesn't mean you have to buy into it. Even if they had minimal effect on this and science is wrong here, it wouldn't matter because it's undeniable that the planet is warming. It's undeniable that it is going to cause major problems to our way of life in the future. I can't say it is undeniable that man is accelerating the process because people (you for instance) will argue against it. But all of the scientific evidence points to it. What is alarming is the rate at which it is accelerating. If you look at this graph its pretty hard to say that we are not contributing. Wow ! Thank you for that CO2 chart. So we've gotten as low as 180 ppm CO2 several times... once dipping even lower than 180ppm. Extremely dangerous low level for life on Earth. Plant life would be be seriously struggling at that level. Barely hanging on. Do you realize that if it ever went below 150ppm that photosynthesis would shut down and 99.9% of plant life would go extinct except for some cave fungi ? ? ? Say bye bye to all animal life including humans at that point. It would be better for us if atmospheric CO2 levels were around 800ppm. Guess why the Greenhouse flower and vegetable industry boosts their CO2 levels to between 800ppm - 1300ppm. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm You can cherry pick the last 800,000 years if you like... but here is another chart. Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni Correction 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 22 hours ago, thaicurious said: 22 hours ago, pkspeaker said: national geographic is wrong, have a nice day. Made me laugh ???? You think NG is beyond reproach, years ago, yes they were, now they have an agenda, they were bought out by Fox news who then sold out to Disney! look where the money is within Disney ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 On 2/8/2020 at 9:36 PM, thaicurious said: Had only you put in the effort simply to play the youtube already provided. Here, let me provide you with the transcript. Or, if only you'd bother to listen to a youtube, I could do a transcript and then read it to you on a youtube for you. Then you wouldn't have to do anything for yourself to learn anything. Better? at 2:59 "...volcanos release a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases...and the greenhouse gases they do emit have a different chemical composition than the gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels." So, again, the problem is human caused. "..., the problem is human caused." What "problem" ? The little bit of nice warming we have now compared to the horrible colder climate of the Little Ice Age that ended about 1850 ? The I.P.C.C. says we warmed about 0.85 degree C between 1880 - 2012. Nice..... and another degree or two or three would be even nicer. Quote: "The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist (Figure SPM.1a). {1.1.1, Figure 1.1} Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Such a small rise in temperature over 132 years following a bad colder time is welcome... Only the far left socialist/Marxist-Leninists who wish to use climate alamism for a politico-economic agenda.... and people who are paid to find "problems".... and those who know nothing of the history of the planet are upset with it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, thaicurious said: We know the ice melting and the seas heating/expanding because we can measure both ice melt directly and because we can measure sea levels over time. If you've lived 20 or 40 years in a waterfront community, you don't even have to measure; you can see it at a glance every day. Seawalls no longer high enough. Docks built long ago now too low. Never mind islands disappearing. More snow every now and then doesn't stop that. But reducing carbon might. Yeah... sea level rise is horrible... Just look at the Alarming sea level rise.... Evidence of Horrible Catastrophic Sea Level Rise La Jolla, California.... 1871:..about 148 years ago.... https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2c/5b/47/2c5b47b34248fafd909589ea87abc75a.jpg La Jolla, California.... recently, about 148 years later..Is It Underwater? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/090207-LaJollaCove.jpg/1200px-090207-LaJollaCove.jpg ______________________________________________________________________________ Another spot in La Jolla.... 1894.. about 124 years ago..... https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/b7/b2/9d/b7b29d8d98c52c4a8b83947edc4cfe53.jpg Same Spot Recently....Devastating Sea Level Rise https://www.facebook.com/lajollahistory/photos/a.10150751175496670/10156964541376670/?type=3&theater Something fishy about this horrible sea level rise we're all experiencing..... _______________________________________________________________________________ Liberty Island, New York - 1898https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f0/86/c7/f086c710cb7572f908c55229b97e4c47.jpg Liberty Island These Days with horrible sea level risehttps://p.motionelements.com/stock-video/architecture-buildings/me1986455-liberty-island-united-states-hd-a0005.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________ Scary Sea Level Rise at Fort Denison, Australia Over the Years. We're Doomed ! https://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fort-dennison-sea-levels.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________ Fort Denison data 'more accurate than satellite' on sea levels https://youtu.be/9mjOmsqIibk Normandy: Then and Now https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3782/11964453693_b0243ceab8_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3869/14842710386_7bfff6e894_z.jpg "When you pay people to give you a predetermined result that you are looking for, and their jobs depend on it, they are all too likely to tell you what you want to hear." Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni addition 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 57 minutes ago, CGW said: Made me laugh ???? You think NG is beyond reproach, years ago, yes they were, now they have an agenda, they were bought out by Fox news who then sold out to Disney! look where the money is within Disney ???? Yes... National Geographic has drifted very much to the left over the years. Same with Scientific America. I only buy them now if they have a good article on Astronomy or Physics. The September, 2013 issue of National Geographic stupidly showed sea level midway up the Statue of Liberty... 214 feet above present sea level. This was obviously intended to induce fright and alarm into the minds of people. The isssue contained alarming visions of impending catastrophic sea level rise and gloom and doom. However... the rate of sea level rise measured since 1856 by gauges at Battery Park 1.7 miles away, showed that for sea level to reach that height at present rate of rise would take at least 23,538 years. Long before then... we will be into another Glacial Period with sea level falling perhaps 400 feet and exposing the Continental Shelves once again. I really don't think we have anything to worry about. The Statue of Liberty is not going to be standing waist deep in water anytime soon. https://alethonews.com/2013/09/26/national-geographic-rising-sea-level-prophecy-cause-for-concern-or-absurd-fairytale/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/ Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni addition 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 2 hours ago, pkspeaker said: wait wait wait... substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. Are there more cat 4 &5s or not? Why is it worded that way? .. below link (i'm giving you the MSM this time since you don't like Tony Hellers videos that contain unreliable things like the actual NOAA sea level data) it says that there are almost NO hurricanes.. and that's 'terrifying'! Which is it? So hurricanes are worse and that's alarming, but there are actually no hurricanes and that's terrifying .. there has to be this perfect medium of hurricanes.. but in the 1800's and early 1900's there were times where there were many hurricanes and times when there were not and back then it was just the weather.. I personally remember around 2003 there were alot of hurricanes hitting florida, one after the other, and then came Katrina.. so what? there were alot of hurricanes-the world didn't end. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/08/04/the-u-s-coast-is-in-an-unprecedented-hurricane-drought-why-this-is-terrifying/?noredirect=on I quoted from a piece posted to a Yale blog which stated from a study that...“We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.” I don't know what confused you or made you paranoid or suspicious but I see nothing wrong with its wording. It says simply that it did not find human activity increasing the number of hurricanes. But it did find human activity responsible for increased intensity of hurricanes. I don't know Heller/Stoddard to like him or not though I don't tend to befriend people who are not truthful. I simply looked up his reputation which is not very good according to what I've read written by published scientists who I do respect. Your saying that he's included in his nonsense some actual data means bubkes when he is misusing that data. Your being offended that I don't accept using real data to draw a fake conclusion is your problem. 1 hour ago, CGW said: Made me laugh ???? You think NG is beyond reproach, years ago, yes they were, now they have an agenda, they were bought out by Fox news who then sold out to Disney! look where the money is within Disney ???? https://www.nationalgeographic.org/about-us/ we have global credibility and a strong legacy in the areas of science, exploration, education and storytelling. Third, our joint venture with NGP provides us access to hundreds of millions of people around the world each month. Finally, we have a $1.2 billion endowment, with additional annual income from NGP and philanthropic partners https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-geographic/ PRO-SCIENCE These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. Overall, we rate National Geographic a Pro-Science source based on proper sourcing and accurate, factual coverage of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/national-geographic-murdoch/ No, National Geographic hasn't begun covering nonsense since their merger with Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 1 minute ago, thaicurious said: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/national-geographic-murdoch/ So you don't believe NG has an agenda, you also believe "snopes" is a credible source, then you quote wikipedia and say they are also credible, even wiki themselves tells you take information contained therein with a pinch of salt. ???? Up to you ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Catoni said: Yeah... sea level rise is horrible... Just look at the Alarming sea level rise.... Evidence of Horrible Catastrophic Sea Level Rise La Jolla, California.... 1871:..about 148 years ago.... https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2c/5b/47/2c5b47b34248fafd909589ea87abc75a.jpg La Jolla, California.... recently, about 148 years later..Is It Underwater? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/090207-LaJollaCove.jpg/1200px-090207-LaJollaCove.jpg ______________________________________________________________________________ Another spot in La Jolla.... 1894.. about 124 years ago..... https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/b7/b2/9d/b7b29d8d98c52c4a8b83947edc4cfe53.jpg Same Spot Recently....Devastating Sea Level Rise https://www.facebook.com/lajollahistory/photos/a.10150751175496670/10156964541376670/?type=3&theater Something fishy about this horrible sea level rise we're all experiencing..... _______________________________________________________________________________ Liberty Island, New York - 1898https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f0/86/c7/f086c710cb7572f908c55229b97e4c47.jpg Liberty Island These Days with horrible sea level risehttps://p.motionelements.com/stock-video/architecture-buildings/me1986455-liberty-island-united-states-hd-a0005.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________ Scary Sea Level Rise at Fort Denison, Australia Over the Years. We're Doomed ! https://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fort-dennison-sea-levels.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________ Fort Denison data 'more accurate than satellite' on sea levels https://youtu.be/9mjOmsqIibk Normandy: Then and Now https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3782/11964453693_b0243ceab8_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3869/14842710386_7bfff6e894_z.jpg "When you pay people to give you a predetermined result that you are looking for, and their jobs depend on it, they are all too likely to tell you what you want to hear." https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level In some ocean basins, sea level rise has been as much as 6-8 inches (15-20 centimeters) since the start of the satellite record in 1993. Both the low-end and “worst-case” possibilities were revised upward in 2017 following a review by the U.S. Interagency Sea Level Rise Taskforce. Based on their new scenarios, global sea level is very likely to rise at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100 even on a low-emissions pathway. On future pathways with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise could be as high as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100. 43 minutes ago, CGW said: So you don't believe NG has an agenda, you also believe "snopes" is a credible source, then you quote wikipedia and say they are also credible, even wiki themselves tells you take information contained therein with a pinch of salt. ???? Up to you ???? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes a fact-checking website.[4] It has been described as a "well-regarded reference for sorting out myths and rumors" on the Internet.[5][6] It has also been seen as a source for validating and debunking urban legends FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Credibility Encyclopedia editors also examine accuracy in the entry Reliability of Wikipedia, compiling the results of international third-party assessments across various disciplines. The consensus: the encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. Edited February 10, 2020 by thaicurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkspeaker Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 32 minutes ago, thaicurious said: I don't know Heller/Stoddard to like him or not though I don't tend to befriend people who are not truthful. I simply looked up his reputation which is not very good according to what I've read written by published scientists who I do respect. Your saying that he's included in his nonsense some actual data means bubkes when he is misusing that data. But you don't say 'how' he is misusing the data. He illustrated with pictures that there are unreliable tide gauges out there because they were placed on a heavy structure that was built on soft earth; He also shows graphs from the NSIDC & DMI to show that this massive ice loss isn't really there, despite what many published 'studies' are claiming. Then you yourself put up a link that confirmed sea level rise is no more than 3mm a year after claiming that sea level rise in the last 20 or 40 years was visually noticeable, something not just debunked by by the data but by photos taken in the 1800's & now. and you didn't address why The Washington Post claims there are no hurricanes and Yale claims there are too many or that they are getting too powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 33 minutes ago, thaicurious said: The consensus: the encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. You might want to read what wiki says about themeselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source The interwebs are great you can always back up your POV ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkspeaker Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 one other thing thaicurious.. That picture you posted (above) that claims 34 billion tons of ice loss 1992-2001 and then 247 billoin tons recently in Greenland... They used a GRACE (Gravity Recovery&Climate Experiment) satellite to estimate those losses.. something that attempts to measure differences in gravity in different zones of the earth (its not reliable or precise) and those losses are from the calving of ice into the water. If you look at the DMI Greenland has an increasing surface mass - which means the ice sheet is actually getting bigger, not smaller.. its not warm enough way up there most of the year (the melt season is only about a month and only in parts of greenland) for ice to melt, most of the time it is well below 0* up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, CGW said: You might want to read what wiki says about themeselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source The interwebs are great you can always back up your POV ???? you might have misunderstood that wiki article. your own referenced site says: "This page ... has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I've no idea about snopes. please post the source of your information. I found this... https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/ There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.” The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions. We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, “My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate.” “You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,” David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican. Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 19 minutes ago, CGW said: You might want to read what wiki says about themeselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source The interwebs are great you can always back up your POV ???? As usual for denialists, no link is provided so on way of knowing the reliablity of the source. So how about providing a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, bristolboy said: As usual for denialists, no link is provided so on way of knowing the reliablity of the source. So how about providing a link? Are you calling me a "denialist" whats that, another "woke" progressive term? Heres your link https://www.google.co.th/?gws_rd=cr&ei=80p4WfLHIcaa8QWDta6YDg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 28 minutes ago, pkspeaker said: But you don't say 'how' he is misusing the data. He illustrated with pictures that there are unreliable tide gauges out there because they were placed on a heavy structure that was built on soft earth; He also shows graphs from the NSIDC & DMI to show that this massive ice loss isn't really there, despite what many published 'studies' are claiming. Then you yourself put up a link that confirmed sea level rise is no more than 3mm a year after claiming that sea level rise in the last 20 or 40 years was visually noticeable, something not just debunked by by the data but by photos taken in the 1800's & now. and you didn't address why The Washington Post claims there are no hurricanes and Yale claims there are too many or that they are getting too powerful. My reference was to the statement about him by real scientists. I need not add to it. The sea rise is accelerating. That's what you don't seem to understand. It most certainly is observable as most of us who have lived for long periods in waterfront communities know. Here's some info for you from the City of Fort Lauderdale which is dealing with this issue... https://gyr.fortlauderdale.gov/greener-government/climate-resiliency/climate-and-weather-in-fort-lauderdale/the-story-of-sea-level-rise-in-fort-lauderdale To your Post story, neither is a dip in numbers a trend nor does no landfall = no hurricanes but thanks for posting old news. I gave it a second's glance. If you have particular points about it you are welcomed to elucidate upon them. 4 minutes ago, pkspeaker said: one other thing thaicurious.. That picture you posted (above) that claims 34 billion tons of ice loss 1992-2001 and then 247 billoin tons recently in Greenland... They used a GRACE (Gravity Recovery&Climate Experiment) satellite to estimate those losses.. something that attempts to measure differences in gravity in different zones of the earth (its not reliable or precise) and those losses are from the calving of ice into the water. If you look at the DMI Greenland has an increasing surface mass - which means the ice sheet is actually getting bigger, not smaller.. its not warm enough way up there most of the year (the melt season is only about a month and only in parts of greenland) for ice to melt, most of the time it is well below 0* up there. The info I posted is from NOAA and we know how you feel about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, CGW said: Are you calling me a "denialist" whats that, another "woke" progressive term? Heres your link https://www.google.co.th/?gws_rd=cr&ei=80p4WfLHIcaa8QWDta6YDg that link goes nowhere. please redo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html Fort Phrachula Chomklao, Thailand 600-041 The relative sea level trend is 16.87 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.87 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1965 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 5.53 feet in 100 years. Nagapattinam, India 500-087 The relative sea level trend is -0.24 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.03 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1971 to 2013 which is equivalent to a change of -0.08 feet in 100 years Lake Worth Pier, FL 8722670 The relative sea level trend is 3.54 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.56 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1970 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 1.16 feet in 100 years. Galveston Pleasure Pier, TX 8771510 The relative sea level trend is 6.62 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.69 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1957 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 2.17 feet in 100 years. Brisbane, Australia 680-078 The relative sea level trend is 1.21 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.59 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1966 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.40 feet in 100 years. Manila, Philippines 660-011 The relative sea level trend is 14.54 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.72 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1963 to 2017 which is equivalent to a change of 4.77 feet in 100 years. Liverpool, UK 170-211 The relative sea level trend is 1.14 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.19 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1858 to 1983 which is equivalent to a change of 0.37 feet in 100 years. Sandy Hook, NJ 8531680 The relative sea level trend is 4.09 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.2 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1932 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 1.34 feet in 100 years. Edited February 10, 2020 by thaicurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicurious Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/08/analysis-sea-level-rise-is-combining-with-other-factors-regularly-flood-miami/ Miami set daily high tide records for more than a week straight for the period bridging late July and early August, despite a total lack of storminess in the region. Sunny day coastal flooding is now routine, submerging some areas on a monthly basis ... ...water filters through the drains flooding the streets of downtown Miami,” Miami’s flooding has rapidly become routine. Since it happens beneath blue skies, many residents may overlook the dire warning signs mixed in with the waters. But while king tides are a natural phenomenon, the main reason they’re menacing Miami is because of climate change-related sea level rise. According to this analysis, there was a 5.9-inch sea-level rise in Miami since 1996. For a city that floods at just 16 inches above flood stage, that jump, which is due to both sea-level rise and land subsidence, is highly consequential. ...versus 23 years ago, since 5.9 inches is 38 percent of 16 inches. In reality, there has been a 3.2-fold increase in how often Miami sees nuisance flooding. That’s a 320 percent jump. Edited February 10, 2020 by thaicurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sucit Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 The truly hilarious part about all this is one main source for denying climate change was massive funding from companies like Exxon Mobile. Exxon Mobile now no longer denies climate change, because even they know that would make them look like untrustworthy imbeciles. Richard Keil, an Exxon spokesman - "We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.” So now what we have is leftovers from the Exxon Mobile propaganda, that was clearly designed to maximize profits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, thaicurious said: My reference was to the statement about him by real scientists. I need not add to it. The sea rise is accelerating. That's what you don't seem to understand. It most certainly is observable as most of us who have lived for long periods in waterfront communities know. Here's some info for you from the City of Fort Lauderdale which is dealing with this issue... https://gyr.fortlauderdale.gov/greener-government/climate-resiliency/climate-and-weather-in-fort-lauderdale/the-story-of-sea-level-rise-in-fort-lauderdale To your Post story, neither is a dip in numbers a trend nor does no landfall = no hurricanes but thanks for posting old news. I gave it a second's glance. If you have particular points about it you are welcomed to elucidate upon them. The info I posted is from NOAA and we know how you feel about them. You mean you didn’t know that the southern U.S. is undergoing land subsidence as a result of post glacial rebound on the north half of the continent ? The land is sinking much more than sea level is rising and you ignore it and claim it’s sea level rise and everyone should panic. Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni Correction 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, sucit said: The truly hilarious part about all this is one main source for denying climate change was massive funding from companies like Exxon Mobile. Exxon Mobile now no longer denies climate change, because even they know that would make them look like untrustworthy imbeciles. Richard Keil, an Exxon spokesman - "We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.” So now what we have is leftovers from the Exxon Mobile propaganda, that was clearly designed to maximize profits. Who denies climate change? Of course climate changes. It’s been changing ever since the planet got an atmosphere and water. Sometimes it changes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes colder, sometimes hotter. The cold periods are the worse. Welcome to Planet Earth. The leftist climate change alarmist industry is getting hundreds of billions to research and fight climate change, and you get upset about oil companies spending a few hundred million to fight the alarmism. Funny.... Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni Addition 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, thaicurious said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/08/analysis-sea-level-rise-is-combining-with-other-factors-regularly-flood-miami/ Miami set daily high tide records for more than a week straight for the period bridging late July and early August, despite a total lack of storminess in the region. Sunny day coastal flooding is now routine, submerging some areas on a monthly basis ... ...water filters through the drains flooding the streets of downtown Miami,” Miami’s flooding has rapidly become routine. Since it happens beneath blue skies, many residents may overlook the dire warning signs mixed in with the waters. But while king tides are a natural phenomenon, the main reason they’re menacing Miami is because of climate change-related sea level rise. According to this analysis, there was a 5.9-inch sea-level rise in Miami since 1996. For a city that floods at just 16 inches above flood stage, that jump, which is due to both sea-level rise and land subsidence, is highly consequential. ...versus 23 years ago, since 5.9 inches is 38 percent of 16 inches. In reality, there has been a 3.2-fold increase in how often Miami sees nuisance flooding. That’s a 320 percent jump. 5.9 inches equals 149.860mm. Over a 24 year period that comes to approx. 6.2mm per year. No ocean on Earth is rising that quickly. So of course it's land subsidence.... much more than sea level rise. All the oceans are connected, and as we know water finds it’s own level. You’re not going to get the Atlantic rising more than 6mm per year and the Pacific rising only 1.2mm per year. That would be like my level bathtub having water higher in one end than in the other end. It ain’t going to happen. In the 116 years from 1900 - 2016, sea level rose no more than 6.3 - 8.3 inches. At the very most. And I seriously doubt it rose that much. Photos of the same places more than 100 years apart simply don’t show it. (Climate Science Special Report: Earth System Science Data 10 (3): 1551 - 1590) I say that if anything....Florida and much of the south U.S. is sinking....more than sea level is rising. Edited February 10, 2020 by Catoni correction... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catoni Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 20 hours ago, Crazy Alex said: Yes, so the huge lake that was there 10,000 years ago disappeared because of plate tectonics and not climate change. Wow, that's some fast tectonic plate action that occurred. LOL Here are the actual facts regarding the lake disappearing: "Lake Manly. Lake Manly was a large freshwater lake which filled the Death Valley (United States) basin before the area's climate became dry at the end of the last ice age. Lake Manly receded due to increased evaporation, and to isolation from the Colorado River system, to which it was once connected." https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+did+the+lake+in+death+valley+dry+up%3F We happen to be in an Ice Age right now that began about 2.6 million years ago. Perhaps you mean the last Glacial Period. When discussing scientific subjects, for reasons of accuracy we should not use colloquialisms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Alex Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, thaicurious said: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256027578_Liberals_Think_More_Analytically_More_WEIRD_Than_Conservatives In five studies with more than 3,000 participants, we found that liberals think more analytically...than moderates and conservatives From your cited source: "Thanks go to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips and posted them,,," Oh, the discredited Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard. How nice. Article authors Myron Ebell & Steven J. Milloy on this one. Let's see who they are: https://scholarsandrogues.com/2017/02/28/steve-milloy-a-liar-for-hire-and-immoral-hypocrite-was-part-of-donalds-epa-transition-team/ Steve Milloy, a liar-for-hire and immoral hypocrite, was part of Donald’s EPA transition team... Milloy has been manufacturing fear, uncertainty, and doubt for dirty industries since he helped the tobacco industries continue addicting and killing customers in the 1990s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell ...an American climate change denier... not a scientist... https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Myron_Ebell Ebell's Group CEI has received millions in fossil fuel funding: In 2013, the Washington Post revealed[11] Murray Energy, Marathon Petroleum, Devon Energy, Phillips 66, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers sponsored an annual dinner benefiting CEI Well yes, of course leftists simply accuse their political adversaries of lying. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't say he's a racist for good measure. Now, specifically, which of the failed predictions do you dispute? And with what facts to make your argument? Edited February 10, 2020 by Crazy Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 6 hours ago, CGW said: Are you calling me a "denialist" whats that, another "woke" progressive term? Heres your link https://www.google.co.th/?gws_rd=cr&ei=80p4WfLHIcaa8QWDta6YDg Actually your "link" leads to nothing which is not surprising. As for "denialist" it means someone who either denies global warming is due to human activity or denies that global warming is even occurring. You got a problem with that? '" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Catoni said: Who denies climate change? Of course climate changes. It’s been changing ever since the planet got an atmosphere and water. Sometimes it changes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes colder, sometimes hotter. The cold periods are the worse. Welcome to Planet Earth. The leftist climate change alarmist industry is getting hundreds of billions to research and fight climate change, and you get upset about oil companies spending a few hundred million to fight the alarmism. Funny.... Someone else who confuses semantics with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 10 hours ago, Catoni said: It was warmer then. The Roman Warm Period.... which followed the Minoan Warm Period. People didn't do as well during the cooler times between the warm periods. Just look at the disaster that the Little Ice Age (approx 1300 - 1850) was in Europe and North America and China... Can you believe some people actually want us to have that cooler climate return? ? Crazy... We're very lucky that we've warmed a bit since then. As a massive study in Nature recently showed, the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were not global phenomena. The current warming is occuring over 98 percent of the Earth's surface. This is only period where such widespread warming has occurred for the past 2000 years. How today’s global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts Temperatures across 98 percent of Earth’s surface were hotter at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years. Such nearly universal warming, occurring in lockstep across the planet, is unique to this current era, scientists say. By contrast, other well-known cold and warm snaps of the past, such as the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, were, in fact, regional rather than worldwide. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-today-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Alex Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, bristolboy said: As a massive study in Nature recently showed, the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were not global phenomena. The current warming is occuring over 98 percent of the Earth's surface. This is only period where such widespread warming has occurred for the past 2000 years. How today’s global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts Temperatures across 98 percent of Earth’s surface were hotter at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years. Such nearly universal warming, occurring in lockstep across the planet, is unique to this current era, scientists say. By contrast, other well-known cold and warm snaps of the past, such as the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, were, in fact, regional rather than worldwide. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-today-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts Funny post. Let's do some math, shall we? 2,000 years is 0.00004% of Earth's timeline. Much of the hysteria promoted by climate change cultists centers around CO2. So the money question is why would a rational person jump to conclusions about 0.00004% of Earth's timeline, especially when life, including primates and other mammals, has flourished with several times more C02 in the atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now