Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels

Thanks for proving you have no clue what the science is. If you did, you would not be so ready to show your ignorance about it but instead have shown to have fallen for the alarmism and political agenda.

It is really sad that so many just believe what they are told by media instead of actually looking into the science. Media never transmits what the uncertainties are, but instead take any paper and state it as fact, when in fact, published papers are not fact but most often opinion. Very rarely does a peer reviewed paper stand the test of time. Another thing that is sad is thinking 'the science is settled' which points to having no clue about science at all. Finally, the fact that there are so many known unknowns and unknown unknowns never seems to put a chip in the armor of those that believe what they are told to believe.

 

Ice melt is on the rise, oceanic and atmospheric temps are spiking and normal weather patterns are shifting. Meteorological records as well as tree ring, rock and ice core samples all show to the spike happening within a few decades of industrialization. And don't give me that 'climate always changes' crap, the changes we're seeing should take millions of years, not 2-3 generations and we should be cooling not warming.

The science disagrees with you, so you obviously don't actually keep up with the science despite your claims. Not that it matters, we passed the point of no return in the 90's so we're screwed regardless of what anyone does or doesn't do.

 

No warming for 18+ years is a spike? The alarmism has really gotten to you hasn't it? You should widen your reading and read all the science, not just the alarmism leading up the Paris COP21 meeting. BTW, you have much of your information wrong or are going on old outdated information like Mann's hockey stick.

 

In the real world....where the bamboozled crackpot inhabitants of Denierstan never travel...

Say Goodbye to Coastlines: New Study Warns of Disastrous Sea Level Rise Within Decades

 

1. That was an error in the math. There has been no slowing in the warming process but the Big Oil types keep repeating it. Once again you show your claim to follow the science to be a lie or you'd have known that. 2. Even if that had been true, oceanic temps (a far bigger concern due to the frozen methane that might be released) has continued to go up. So much so that they're catching tropical fish in Denmark now.

- - - Updated - - -

That's already happening. Full/new moons brings high tide into the streets. The last supermoon we had had people ankle deep in ocean water 2 blocks inland during high tide in Miami Beach.

 

So, you are saying the two most reliable and least adjusted temperature records, the two satellite records is a math error? Go figure.

You certainly do have the goofiest alarmist rant devoid of reality though.

 

You can lead a braindead troll to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.....good words to remember when dealing with some of the trolls on this forum....like Hoosier8....you can (and should) debunk his fraudulent propaganda but you will never get him to admit that he is wrong or that his denier cult myths are nothing but bogus bullcrap cooked up by the greedheads in the fossil fuel industry to fool the low-information, low-intelligence rightwingnut voter base.

 

That's all you got? You think true belief trumps science? It is good to know you think of this as political, it explains the lack of understanding of the science.

 

I honestly see them as a cult. AGW and worship of so called scientist that predict end of the world along with their group think and denial of reality is the definition of a cult.

 

Wow, I have to thank you again for showing what you really do or do not know about the science. First, you assume a headline is proven fact, yet the article is from the main doomsayer of the AGW movement, James Hansen, who has been a publicity hound for decades. Again, it is apparent you didn't even read the article because he is basically saying his models are better than the ones the IPCC is using and he is advertising a new outlet where he can post papers before peer review, which is a great way to get the alarmism out.

Models are not fact, opinion is not fact, and papers are not fact. That is something you still don't understand.

 

That's exactly what the flat-earthers say about NASA. You are as clueless, ignorant and insane as they are.

 

Lashing out in anger as your cult is exposed is another clue here.

 

LOLOL.....who's angry?

I just am pointing out what idiotic, anti-science, paranoid bullcrap you post. You deniers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes ARE like modern 'flat-earthers', rejecting all of the overwhelming mountains of evidence and the virtually unanimous testimony of the world scientific community supporting the reality of AGW/CC (or, for flat-earthers, the reality of a spherical Earth and space travel). Your line about "worship of so called scientists" gives away your basic rightwingnut rejection of science. What? Were you raised a 'fundamentalist' and taught to distrust science because your crackpot cult didn't believe in Evolution? Or have you just listened to Rush and FauxNews so much that your little brain turned into rancid mush?

 

Your hysteria is typical of one that has not read any of the science and believes alarmist pap from the media. If you actually weren't so anti-science yourself and hysterically angry you could try some reading and expand your horizons a bit.

 

Here you go since you are so smart and you know what is fact and what isn't. Win yourself some dough.

http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

 

Your anti-science denial of reality is typical of one who has not read ANY of the actual science and instead believes the bullcrap propaganda cracked out by the greed-heads in the fossil fuel industry, who face financial devastation if the very necessary carbon taxes are enacted.

You are a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which causes you to make the braindead assumption that you know more about science than all of the world's real PhD scientists. LOL.

I know that I am not a climate scientist, but I AM smart and knowledgeable enough to trust science and to trust the virtually unanimous testimony of the world's climate scientists, backed by the overwhelming support and affirmation of the rest of the world scientific community....as reflected in the scientific literature and summed up here...Scientific opinion on climate change

 

You have the environmentalist narrative down pat. Now, try some actual science instead of wikipedia and get back to us.

 

You mean like this...

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; revised and reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways ‐‐ some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human‐induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low‐latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

 

And another childish temper tantrum rant from a brainwashed cult member.

 

The AGU put out an advocacy statement. That has been one of the problems with organizations like this, political advocacy and ignoring member contributions.

Roger Pielke Sr.

Judith Curry

 

What I find is amusing is that people actually think they can reverse global warming.

 

I'm amused that you are so stupid that you think that mankind can't reverse global warming when it is our activities that are causing it. If we stop adding 30 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans every year, you don't think that will have any effect? Moron!

 

based on what evidence friend? you got anything other than your wash, rinse, repeat scenario? nope!!! So you prove to us that CO2 is dangerous and we all might reconsider our position, but until then, all you are doing is laundry.

 

As opposed to conspiracy theorists who are stuck in the spin cycle.

 

someone has to finish the laundry. Now post up that there evidence you got and let's see where it takes us. To the laundry room or factual discussion.