Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels

I have been challenged to prove that sea levels will rise a significant amount due to climate change

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/abstract
http://people.uncw.edu/grindlayn/GLY550/Fairbanks-Sealevel-1989.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1747.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1340.short

 

Ice has been melting since the Ice Age, the Great Lakes between Canada and the US are demonstrations of reference. What scientific facts can you produce that man has anything to do with this reality?

 

you cannot change the proportions of a mixture and not change it's properties. It is impossible! this very, very basic science.

-The mixture in this case is the atmosphere.
-The change is increasing the percentage of GHG's in that mixture.
-Increased GHG's MUST change the properties of the mixture( in this case increase warming), it can do nothing else.
-The increase of GHG's are due to human emissions, verified.
-Increased temps must result in accelerated melting, it can do nothing else.
-Accelerated melting must result in sea level rise, it can do nothing else.

the only unknowns are how quickly the melting will happen, and how high the sea levels will go.

 

OK, then, so Bowerbird proved the point. Now, let's move on to some other challenge. Sea levels are rising, now let's show that man has something to do with it. That shouldn't be too hard, either.

 

The envirowhackos proclaim man made CO2 to be the problem but of all of the CO2 in the atmosphere less than 1% can be attributed to man. The oceans produce the most CO2 and do so according to nature's demand to move to equilibrium.

 

I've already done that.

 

So you have.

Well, I guess this thread has run its course, then, unless the hoaxers want to move to the next level of argument: "Sure, global warming is real, and yes, humans are contributing to it. Now, do we want the environazis (read also: envirowackos) to succeed in bringing us back into the stone age by banning all fossil fuels? "

or even level 4: Sure, it's real, and humans are contributing, but Al Gore will make money on the deal.

Perhaps level 5: "Global warming will be a good thing in places like Iceland, so why worry?

Threads like this can go on for a long time, with the deniers shifting from one argument to another, often so smoothly that no one really notices that the goal posts have moved.

 

Mt Pinatubo eruption contributed 20 million tons of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere lowering global temps 0.4 °C (0.7 °F)...Man made CO2 emissions in 2009 were 9.2 Billion tons...so 20 million tons of emissions can have a cooling effect on climate whereas 9.2 billion tons of GHG's cannot have a warming effect? really?

The environment will always find an equilibrium if the input stops as it did with the Pinatubo emissions, but unlike Pinatubo's SO2 emissions which have a reasonably short lifespan in the atmosphere of only a few years, CO2 emissions are not stopping, they're increasing and CO2 lifespan has lifespan in the atmosphere of several hundred years...

 

You don't need to be a scientist to understand this, just grade school level science and a little common sense....at it's simplest it's cause/effect...

 

Oh, no, in fact, being a scientists makes one suspect. Scientists all over the world are in cahoots to keep perpetuating the myth and protect the flow of research dollars, don't you know. That's why only people posting anonymously on political forums have the real story.

 

The 13 cons on this link convince me the science is on my side
http://climatechange.procon.org/

 

really? heartland and heritage foundation, both funded by the Koch brothers who own a huge coal producing industry...and American Association of Petroleum Geologists yeah they have no financial stake in this LOL...and if you read the AAPG they don't deny climate change or AGW, they blur it because they know who is signing their pay cheques, I know personally a half dozen oil geologists and even a corporate oil CEO and none of them privately deny GHG's and their effect on climate....every scientific organization of the planet accepts it, every country accepts it even the oil producing middle east states...

but then there is you who asks for evidence then refuses to acknowledge it and tackle the grade school science... then deflects to energy sector producers and their funded denier websites...the science is on your side? you don't even understand the science...

CO2 to small emissions to effect climate change? I've already clearly demonstrated that amount/% is not equal to effect...all GHG's combined amount to little over 1% of the atmosphere, but that tiny 1% keeps the planet from becoming a lifeless snowball. GHG's have power far out of proportion to their size...we live in a knife edge thin climatic zone where life as know it is possible, it takes relatively very little change in atmospheric content to shift that zone...

 

yup a conspiracy of millions of scientists and their wives/families and not one has spilled the beans on this fiendish scheme...

 

Okay but you tell me - what is causing the melting??

 

So, the very FIRST paper on the "con" side is from Willie Soon and Sallie Bailiunaus

I won't pull their research to pieces - plenty of others have done that I think the Wiki Link is the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

So first "con" proves to BE a con

Second Con

Now this is more like the bunkum that has been debunked
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

More tomorrow - tired now

- - - Updated - - -

So, the very FIRST paper on the "con" side is from Willie Soon and Sallie Bailiunaus

I won't pull their research to pieces - plenty of others have done that I think the Wiki Link is the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

So first "con" proves to BE a con

Second Con

Now this is more like the bunkum that has been debunked
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

More tomorrow - tired now

 

The sun.

 

Here's an experiment for you to try... fill a glass with crushed ice and water to the brim and another glass of the same size with just room temperature water and leave both at room temperature until the ice melts...did the glass with ice overflow or lose volume?

 

The glass with ice will lose volume, of course. Now, try this experiment: Find a container with a large lip on it. Fill it with water, and pile ice on the lip, so that, when the ice melts, water flows into the container. Observe your experiment carefully to see the results. Now, compare that to the melting of ice that is on land, and draw your conclusion.

 

Oh now we are no longer in a controlled experiment environment. One of the problems with science is, we need more data...You cannot measure melting ice on the surface of earth/seas and know the results to be factual unless you know all the variables in the same manner I can using two equal sizes of containers in a controlled environment.

While we have melting polar cap we have enlarging polar cap on the other pole...we have millions of tons of molten lava pouring into the ocean/land at known and unknown locations. Perhaps more snow falls reflecting more sun, perhaps more CO2 consuming life is generated? Should we farm the forest, cut them and throw them in the oceans to store the carbon...oh we just don't know...should we let forest fires burn or put them out? All life is made up of carbon and we can't determine if more fresh water in the oceans produces more or less life forms which consume or produce more or less CO2...lots of moving objects to KNOW to conclude anything.

 

Climate change is indeed complex.

Which is why we need to quit making up nonsense about how the scientific community is all wrong and get behind research to try to get a better idea of what is coming, so we can prepare.

But, of course, that is not human nature. Human nature is to ignore the problem, hoping that it will go away, until it does get to a crisis, then point fingers and blame the other guy. I'm convinced that is how the problem of AGW will be addressed.

 

Doing something, the wrong thing like in the Sandy Hook gun collection drive will not help...like in the gun issue the gun didn't kill, the insane guy did the killing with a gun. Spending trillions of dollars doing something is just stupid and serves no purpose would be equal to doing nothing!

These guys say don't jump into spending trillions and put entire states populations on food stamps like West Virginia if you don't have some proof what you're doing will help... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

 

it's clear since you failed to address the simplest explanation that I presented in the first page that the problem here lies with you...you don't know anything therefore you conclude that no one else can possibly have an explanation...you ask for explanations and ignore them when presented because you either don't understand them or you have a political agenda, politics is not science ...

 

and he'll ignore this and deflect onto a political tangent...

 

Here you go.

I don't think it's that cut and dried, there are still millions of variables. What makes you so confident that nature can't resolve the problem itself? Nature is extremely complex when talking about living things let alone air and water corrections or change is a constant event...nothing is hard and fast nor permanent. If animals over populate they either produce less offspring or a predator shows up and reduces the overpopulation. There was doom and gloom over the BP platform explosion oil spill here recently but like magic the oil disappeared eaten up by natural means. Using your hard and fast assumptions the adding of a million cubic yards of molten lava to the pristine ocean would destroy it but volcanic islands abound in harmony with pristine clear ocean waters. Nature is very complex and it seems it's you that want to make it simple?

 

Can nature take care of the problem?
Sure, easy. Just eliminate 99% or so of the pesky humans that keep messing things up. Problem solved.