8 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

That's Key West in Florida. My dad lived there in the 70s and I've been hearing about rising sea levels my entire life now yet the island remains exactly like it was before I was even born.

 

 

50 years ago:

 

 

Maybe it floods in 50 years? Maybe 500? Who knows at this point but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I have to say I don't understand how you think these photos are evidence in support of your position. I have seen 50 year old photos compared to current ones which show the same scene and the sea level the same. Not that they are valid evidence but still..

Yours don't even seem to offer any basis for comparison.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Talking of simplistic! Consumption does not necessarily contribute to warming, and the topic is warming, isn't it?

IMO when such as Gore and De Caprio lecture us about it, they are easy to scorn because of their love of flying in private jets. They are 2 rich people- do ya think they'll be reducing their consumption any time soon?

Really, consumption doesn't not necessarily contribute to warming? Because agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce in general don't require energy. And energy still isn't largely produced by combustion? 

And do you understand that your reference to Gore and DeCaprio actually supports the point that the top 1% do contribute a lot more to global warming? But thanks for the support.

8 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

That's Key West in Florida. My dad lived there in the 70s and I've been hearing about rising sea levels my entire life now yet the island remains exactly like it was before I was even born.

 

 

50 years ago:

 

 

Maybe it floods in 50 years? Maybe 500? Who knows at this point but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Apparently we are supposed to believe that sea level is rising, but not everywhere.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently we are supposed to believe that sea level is rising, but not everywhere.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion about what you are supposed to believe, but in fact the science doesn't say that. For instance, as Antarctic ice melts the total gravitational force of the Antarctic will lessen and less seawater will be drawn to it.. So sea levels there might actually fall. At least for a while.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really, consumption doesn't not necessarily contribute to warming? Because agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce in general don't require energy. And energy still isn't largely produced by combustion? 

And do you understand that your reference to Gore and DeCaprio actually supports the point that the top 1% do contribute a lot more to global warming? But thanks for the support.

The rich can't eat more quantity than other people, so you just confirmed my point that more people = more activity, more fuel consumption, more forests destroyed to raise cattle, more ships to transport the food, etc.

Thanks for the support.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For instance, as Antarctic ice melts the total gravitational force of the Antarctic will lessen and less seawater will be drawn to it..

Link?

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

The rich can't eat more quantity than other people, so you just confirmed my point that more people = more activity, more fuel consumption, more forests destroyed to raise cattle, more ships to transport the food, etc.

Thanks for the support.

If eating were the only activity in question you might have a point. Clearly you don't even understand the point you raised. You just accused 2 rich people of consuming more resources via air travel. And there are automobiles, large homes and all the other goods and services they consume. You might want to acquaint yourself with the economic definition of consumption before you get yourself in any deeper. It is to laugh.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Link?

"Ice-sheet mass loss leads to a sea-level (that is, water depth) fall at the grounding line, both because of post-glacial rebound of the unloaded crust and a drop in sea surface height as water migrates away from the ice sheet because of reduced gravitational attraction"

Sea-level feedback lowers projections of future Antarctic Ice-Sheet mass loss (nih.gov)

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"Ice-sheet mass loss leads to a sea-level (that is, water depth) fall at the grounding line, both because of post-glacial rebound of the unloaded crust and a drop in sea surface height as water migrates away from the ice sheet because of reduced gravitational attraction"

Sea-level feedback lowers projections of future Antarctic Ice-Sheet mass loss (nih.gov)

LOL.

From your link

The Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) has the potential to make a significant contribution to future sea-level rise

 

Bolding by me.

It's all supposition based on modelling. The same sort of modelling that said sea level might have risen by a meter or more by now, when it apparently hasn't.

 

 

BTW IF the Antarctic ice cap melts, it's probably game over for humanity, except a few rowing old oil tankers or sailing around on catamarans.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

From your link

The Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) has the potential to make a significant contribution to future sea-level rise

 

Bolding by me.

It's all supposition based on modelling. The same sort of modelling that said sea level might have risen by a meter or more by now, when it apparently hasn't.

 

 

BTW IF the Antarctic ice cap melts, it's probably game over for humanity, except a few rowing old oil tankers or sailing around on catamarans.

From my earlier comment: "So sea levels there might actually fall. At least for a while."

Nothing in what I linked to contradicts my assertion about gravity. And confirmation of that is what you asked for, isn't it?  If you still have a problem with the gravitational effect of solid water on liquid water, take it up with Newton or Einstein.

And nice try with cherry picking data. I don't know what model you are referring to but the overwhelming scientific consensus has never endorsed such a prediction. 

I kindly suggest you stop digging yourself in deeper.

For months, there were no flights, almost no cars on the road, no airplanes, factories closed.

Air quality and CO2 not improved a lot.

 

Who needs electric cars. That's just a political hype.

1 hour ago, AlfHuy said:

Who needs electric cars. That's just a political hype.

IMO it's all about the money. Some people are getting very rich from the political push to electric cars.

Hydrogen is a far better option IMO, but can still use present cars converted to use hydrogen, so not so much profit for some, IMO.

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by thaibeachlovers

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

the gravitational effect of solid water on liquid water,

That implies the sea water slopes up to the Antarctic ice cap.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That implies the sea water slopes up to the Antarctic ice cap.

Maybe in your universe there's no such thing as gravity?

8 hours ago, AlfHuy said:

For months, there were no flights, almost no cars on the road, no airplanes, factories closed.

Air quality and CO2 not improved a lot.

 

Who needs electric cars. That's just a political hype.

Nonsense.

COVID-19's impact on the atmospheric environment in the Southeast Asia region

COVID-19's impact on the atmospheric environment in the Southeast Asia region - ScienceDirect

 

COVID-19 lockdowns had strange effects on air pollution across the globe

Unusually low emissions earlier this year are providing chemists with a unique opportunity to study the atmosphere, and they’re discovering new complexities...

This is a pretty good model for what the world would be like if half of us were driving electric cars,” Cohen says.

COVID-19 lockdowns had strange effects on air pollution across the globe (acs.org)

 

Environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as observed from space

Environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as observed from space -- ScienceDaily