Warmists Now Trying Latest Excuses for Slowdown of Sea Levels Rising Since 2003

Except, of course, there is no science or data that proves the ocean levels will be rising as claimed by the warmist idiots. There's lots of theories and conjecture and junk science masquerading as fact (because the warmist cult all believes it), but there is no real consensus, and since it hasn't happened, it is not reality in any sense of the word.

The Navy might be tasked to do these evacuations, but since they are an arm of the government and it is the government who is perpetrating this ridiculous hoax on it's own country, then it's not exactly rocket science they're out there doing such silliness at the orders of their task masters.

 

Nah, leave'em be. It's primarily democrats, living in a city and area below sea level. Whomever convinced them it was a good idea is a damn genius.

 

These are all worthy goals, but what's really driving all of these problems and many more that you don't list is the unfortunate fact that the global human population has been breeding like bacteria (yes, statistically that's a fact). Every observation of all species suddenly breeding as fast as possible without constraint, from bacteria to lemmings, supports a boom-and-crash population scenario. Finding cleaner energy sources sounds good in principle, but on the ground there just aren't that many that don't take more energy to generate than they produce as the output. And those few don't scale up very well.

 

You make up for in conviction what you lack in analysis. I'll gladly agree with you that all kinds of pollution are a win-win situation right now - did you see the pictures of Beijing, where the pollution was so thick you couldn't see across the street, and people have to wear masks? But in exchange, they can produce products at lower prices than anyone else.

Yes, it is. In fact, as a warming driver, CO2 is mild and WAY down the list in terms of effectiveness. So the implicit part of the argument here is that all of these other drivers are in equilibrium, neither growing nor shrinking. Only CO2, of all the warming drivers, is increasing steadily every year. But clearly, it's not workable to do a linear projection because the equilibria of all the others are dynamic, not static. Cloud cover waxes and wanes, solar output varies over several cycles, the jet stream and ocean currents are also quite variable. Any one of these can quite easily overpower the much lesser effect of CO2.

 

This is the same attitude of the doofuses that insist because Walmart has painted pretty white stripes across the parking lot in front of the door that they have the right of way and walk right out in front of a moving vehicle....then wonder why they're in the hospital when they get run over.

You might have that "right-of-way", but the laws of physics tell you that regardless of any perceived or man given rights, the vehicle will win every time.

We also tend to see a similar attitude in the morons who continue to rebuild their homes along the coast in areas prone to hurricanes...in some cases, multiple times.

Ya know, California, especially along the coast and the northern areas is a gorgeous state (I lived in Monterey for a while), but it's political and cultural failings aside, the unstable ground there is not worth investing money into property. I grew up in Florida, so I've seen my share of hurricanes. I'll never own property there either. I now live in western PA. About the only thing bad that happens here are the ridiculous taxes foisted on us by the primarily democrat politicos they keep electing into offices and positions.

The only thing stopping anyone from moving are excuses.

 

No, you just simply, and completely miss the entire point. The entire global warming bent started with, and continues to go with the entire notion that "OMFG MAN IS KILLING THE ATMOSPHERE AND WARMING THE EARTH....AHHHHHH!!!!!!!, WE'RE ALL DOOMED IF WE DON'T ENACT DRASTIC, DRACONIAN, EXPENSIVE, GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED FIXES OF SOME KIND..AND DO IT RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!"

When in reality, no one can say, with any degree of certainty how much mankind is actually contributing to any climate trend (be it warming, or cooling, depending on who you ask).

No one can say that any current trend in climate change (assuming there is one) is, or isn't a natural process that would continue unabated even we completely and absolutely reduced our emissions to zero.

In other words, figure out precisely what our role is in this supposed calamity, and more importantly, to what degree.

Before you start clanging the alarm bell and flittering about with your hair on fire, it would be most prudent to be absolutely sure that your clanging and flittering are warranted.

 

I suspect this of being an exaggeration. But I understand your point. It would probably be wiser to have our models a bit more solid before committing too many resources.

Absolute certainty is not available in this life, and we'll probably never even get universal agreement on how probable is probable enough. After all, about 25% of Americans still smoke, even 40 years after the science was solid enough to warrant banning ads and smoking in most locations. And a lot of smokers simply don't accept the risks they're taking.

I think part of the AGW problem, the part you are bellowing about, comes from what I call a "war mentality", where the enemy must be demonized in black-and-white terms, so the enemy is entirely black without the slightest redeeming feature. This extremist approach works wonders in getting a population mobilized to combat Pure Evil, but once the demonization has been put into effect, it's damn near impossible to change it or reverse it, despite any amount of evidence. The whole purpose of demonization is to generate an emotional commitment, almost like a religious faith, self-perpetuating and disconnected from reality. Even today, three whole generations after WWII, movies instantly identify their villains by giving them German accents, and German policies and politicians from back then are still the icons of Pure Evil.

On the other hand, especially in matters like this, waiting for all the results to be in and for the models to be solid, may mean postponing meaningful preventive measures for too long. The time may come when we need to plow our resources into dealing with a misfortune we could have prevented, but we didn't because we lacked absolute certainty.

 

For now, yes. 20 years from now, who knows? I remain optimistic about new energy sources and existing ones that become cost effective.

As far as the population explosion goes, there are many countries who are not having that much of an increase in numbers. Don't know what to do with those that are.

 

Here we go...

 

You don't even have a grasp upon the science involved and what data to use.

Talking about climate 65 Million to 200 Million years ago is idiotic as such climates occurred under very different conditions than exist now.

AboveAlpha

 

We understand very well what can or cannot increase Global Temps.

We KNOW that CO2 and CH4 are the highest levels in 100,000 years and are at the highest rate of increase in 100,000 years.

We KNOW that volcanic activity, solar output and Earth's solar orbit are at low points or at periods when cool trends should occur.

We KNOW....Man Made CO2 is the ONLY way the rising CO2 levels could be occurring.

AboveAlpha

 

lol "might" mean something. LMAO... So let's cripple our economy and energy production over something that MIGHT happen. Yep, Liberal logic 101 there.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody knows squat. What caused the CO2 levels to be WAYYYY higher millions of years ago? Dino farts?

- - - Updated - - -

What very different conditions. Please explain. The exact same conditions exist today, the Earth orbits the sun, we have a 24 hour day period, a 365 day year period. We are at the same distance from the Sun, etc. What conditions were "very" different?

 

The point was, this is an important and significant and relevant fact. Your policy position REQUIRES that you ignore it completely. You seem to be saying "I don't WANT it to mean anything, therefore I'll pretend it doesn't mean anything and maybe it will go away." You really ought to wonder about a political position that REQUIRES you to pretend ignorance of the most important facts.

 

OMG!!

Your post demonstrates how very little you know about such things.

No...the Earth did NOT have a 24 hour day back then....as a day has increased by several hours and 100 Million years ago was in the 23 hour range.

The Earth's orbit around the sun CHANGES over thousands of years in a cyclical fashion as well our YEAR has increased in time as Earth's Orbit has slowed down and as well to to a WOBBLE in Earth's orbit around the sun we have a cyclical period of Ice Ages and Warming Trends.

We are NOT in a Solar Orbit right now specific to a Warming Trend.

Back when the Dinosaurs roamed the Earth there was a great deal of Volcanic Activity which dramatically increased the amount of CO2 which holds in heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

We are NOT in any heavy period of Volcanic activity.

Do yourself a FAVOR and try to read up and LEARN a few things before you post a load of nonsense.

AboveAlpha

 

This is comical. Read here:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/3642932.htm

Turns out the day was shorter at that time, there were more days in a year. When dinosaurs first appeared, there were a bit more than 21 hours in a day, and about 23 hours in a day 200 million years later when they went extinct. This is due to tidal forces.

You might enjoy reading about these things. It's pretty fascinating.

 

Thanks for posting this.

I get tired of constantly having to provide links to sources to allow others to learn about things I already know.

AboveAlpha

 

wow less than an hour...OH MY GOD! So, tell us,,,what VERY different conditions existed.

- - - Updated - - -

What's comical is you are wrong citing your own article.

 

What's comical is that you did not read for content. If the day was 23 hours 65 million years ago, how long was it 250 million years ago? Do you suppose it froze at 23 hours 250 million years ago and didn't change for the next 200 million years? Or didn't you think about it at all?

In fact, the day got steadily longer over 200 million years, and continues to get steadily longer today. This will continue until the earth stops spinning with respect to the moon (the two bodies will be "tidally locked"), at which time the moon will stop receding.

This really is fascinating stuff.

(And incidentally, there is plenty of evidence of many different kinds that the composition of the earth's atmosphere has changed a great deal over time. One reason dinosaurs (not to mention insects!) were able to achieve physical sizes beyond what's currently possible is because the O2 content in the atmosphere was much higher, allowing faster burn rates. So rather than dig in your heels and insist that the past was "just like" the present, why not admit error and LEARN something?)

 

Good luck to you and me trying to get these guy's to learn ANYTHING!!!

You know if the evidence supported that Global Warming was NOT Man Made I would be posting all about such evidence but unfortunately such evidence DOES NOT EXIST.

I only post about facts and realities and if I am posting about what I believe I will state it is my opinion.

What I am posting about here is NOT my opinion and the CDIAC data gives us a great deal of evidence to a point it can be said it is incontrovertible PROOF that Global Warming is Man Made.

AboveAlpha

 

As many denialists have nonetheless accurately pointed out, the planet has NOT been warming for maybe the last decade or longer. I don't think anyone questions that human activities are polluting the atmosphere, and that CO2 (and possibly methane) are steadily increasing. And these gases SHOULD be warming up the planet, but it's not happening. Figuring out why not is a real challenge, and many possibilities have been proposed. The two leading contenders right now are that (1) the planet IS warming, but doing so in places not being monitored very well, like deep in the sea; and (2) other factors driving climate change have recently been overpowering and counteracting the CO2 increases.

 

One of the results of an overall increase in Global Temps. is extreme and unpredictable short term Temp. swings and ever increasing storms of greater power.

The current Arctic Vortex that has been plaguing continental North America is an example of this.

The realities are the more energy in the form of heat introduced into a system...ie...Earth's Atmosphere....the greater the number and power of storm systems and this is something that without any doubt has been happening.

The CDIAC site I provided a link to has charts detailing all climate and atmospheric data and how it compares to over 100,000 years of Ice Core Data.

There are a few things that we cannot ignore and that is the parts per million of CO2 and CH4 in our atmosphere is not only at the highest levels in 100,000 years but is increasing faster than at any time in recorded history.

As well the U.S. Military is currently developing plans to evacuate ENTIRE ISLAND NATIONS in the Pacific which will be completely underwater in just a few years.

AboveAlpha

 

We'll all just ignore the FACT that the Warmists themselves admit that there has been no warming for more than a decade, (global temp has DROPPED .2 degrees, in fact) , and that the seas are NOT RISING as they had predicted.

Please explain how much more significant warming took place between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, melting solid sheets of ice 1000 meters thick into glaciers, forming the Great Lakes, etc,with zero input from mankind.

 

If you actually knew anything about this you would realize that the Great Lakes were formed when an Ice Age ended where Glacier Ice covered a great amount of North America.

Such Ice Ages and Warming Trends are cyclical in their nature and are caused by the change in the Earth's Solar Orbit and Wobble.

Global Temps. have NOT dropped 2 degrees as you do not even understand that AIR TEMPS. are not the proper way to measure over all Global Temps. as this is done using OCEAN TEMPERATURES.

AboveAlpha

 

No kidding? What do you think I was referring to, with: "Please explain how much more significant warming took place between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, melting solid sheets of ice 1000 meters thick into glaciers, forming the Great Lakes, etc,with zero input from mankind."

Good grief, Another pseudo "science genius" Warmist.


Der.

"If you knew anything about this "...how was THAT "cyclical",and the much LESSER current, STALLED warming NOT"cyclical"?

Oooops! There's that "logic" thingy again...sinking your crap like the load of manure it is.