2015 Warmest Year on Record

[TampaBuzz]

If we hit the targets the international scientific community recommends, we'll shave a fraction of a degree. Not worth it. And in the southeast for example, even if humans didn't affect the climate one bit, we'd still be sinking a couple inches a decade. Governments shouldn't spend money to fix unfixable problems. Don't live on the coast in areas that are sinking or vulnerable unless you can afford to. Venice has sank 5 feet in the last 500 years. At some point they need to just move unless they want to live in Water World. If automobiles disappeared, Venice would keep sinking and sea level would keep rising.

You are always talking about how much the land is sinking in the southeast and that it is more urgent than sea level rise...will you please point me to the research on that? I have done a couple of quick searchs and can't find anything. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You have got to be kidding!!! Do you seriously believe that every scientist in every country in the world is falsifying data to support AGW just to keep money flowing? You must have a very poor opinion of scientists and engineers. Dadgum man, most of us probably work for government agencies in some way shape or form as consultants or employees....are you suggesting that we all falsify data to come to a pre-determined outcome? Do you want to come down to Key Largo and explain to all those homeowners that the sea water that has been sitting in their roads for 3+ months was just an illusion? If I schedule that meeting will you come down and explain the your truth of AGW to the homeowners? I can just see it, you stand up in front of the crowd and tell them, "Everything is fine...the sea level is not rising and all those scientists are liars". Those good folks would run you out of town on a rail.

By the way sir...you may also want to ask who is funding the "anti-AGW" studies. Is it possible that those are funded by the coal, oil, automotive, etc. industries that have the most to lose in the transition to renewables?

NOAA and others have been caught multiple times fudging numbers. NOAA has adjusted the raw temperature data a couple times, claiming that the equipment needed to be recalibrated. But the vast majority of the scientists aren't fudging data in my opinion, its the hysterical nature of their alarmism that's the problem. The data they post shows temperatures have increased about 1 degree in the last 150 years.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You are always talking about how much the land is sinking in the southeast and that it is more urgent than sea level rise...will you please point me to the research on that? I have done a couple of quick searchs and can't find anything. Thanks!

I didn't say it was more urgent than sea level rise. I said its just also urgent. And that sea level is rising irrespective of any human causes. The rate of change of sea level rise over the last 50 years compared to say the previous 100 is not very different. So even if it were 100% from humans (which isn't alleged), you're talking about less than 1 inch different.

Here is one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...sinking-into-the-atlantic-ocean/#53e782d733fb
1.2 inches of sinking per decade.

And sinking is actually also human caused - all the weight of concentrated building causes those areas to sink. The pulling of water out of aquifers leads to subsistence. And overbuilding removes trees which drink the water. Flooding is caused by a number of human-driven factors, and only 1 small part is global warming. Sinking ground, overbuilding, the weight of buildings, all leads to it.

Note that over the last 50 years, its estimated that sea level along the southeast has risen 4 inches and that the ground has sank 6 inches.

 

[Lotta Booze]

If we hit the targets the international scientific community recommends, we'll shave a fraction of a degree. Not worth it. And in the southeast for example, even if humans didn't affect the climate one bit, we'd still be sinking a couple inches a decade. Governments shouldn't spend money to fix unfixable problems. Don't live on the coast in areas that are sinking or vulnerable unless you can afford to. Venice has sank 5 feet in the last 500 years. At some point they need to just move unless they want to live in Water World. If automobiles disappeared, Venice would keep sinking and sea level would keep rising.

What do you mean "not worth it"? Are you expecting a cooling of multiple degrees for it to be "worth it"? The goal isn't necessarily to cool the planet at all...but to prevent warming that would make life uninhabitable in some places and cause disaster. If the status quo can be maintained that would be a success

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What do you mean "not worth it"? Are you expecting a cooling of multiple degrees for it to be "worth it"? The goal isn't necessarily to cool the planet at all...but to prevent warming that would make life uninhabitable in some places and cause disaster. If the status quo can be maintained that would be a success

Do you really think a fraction of a degree different will make life uninhabitable? Temperatures over the last 150 years have risen about 3-4x that (about 1 full degree) and life is not uninhabitable. If the average temperature in say 10 years with all cars removed is 70F and it would have been 70.4F if we wouldn't have removed all the cars from the road, is the earth suddenly livable then when it wouldn't have been? You don't inflict massive negative damage on people's way of life for a highly uncertain outcome. You don't forecast the end of the world when no science predicts that. It ruins the entire debate and turns large volumes of people away from listening.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Do you really think a fraction of a degree different will make life uninhabitable? Temperatures over the last 150 years have risen about 3-4x that (about 1 full degree) and life is not uninhabitable. If the average temperature in say 10 years with all cars removed is 70F and it would have been 70.4F if we wouldn't have removed all the cars from the road, is the earth suddenly livable then when it wouldn't have been? You don't inflict massive negative damage on people's way of life for a highly uncertain outcome. You don't forecast the end of the world when no science predicts that. It ruins the entire debate and turns large volumes of people away from listening.

Fraction of a degree off the current baseline? No. But limiting the change to a fraction of a degree rather than multiple degrees down the road? Yes. That is significant.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Fraction of a degree off the current baseline? No. But limiting the change to a fraction of a degree rather than multiple degrees down the road? Yes. That is significant.

there is no science that predicts that. The IPCC Predicts that by implementing their recommendations, temperatures will be reduced by a fraction of a degree compared to what they would’ve been.

 

[Lotta Booze]

there is no science that predicts that. The IPCC Predicts that by implementing their recommendations, temperatures will be reduced by a fraction of a degree compared to what they would’ve been.

Yes, yes there is. Straight from IPCC. And the RCP numbers are different scenarios based on what measures are taken. Granted you didn't specify exactly which measures, or what timeline, but I think the below shows more than just a fraction of a degree over the next few decades

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yes, yes there is. Straight from IPCC. And the RCP numbers are different scenarios based on what measures are taken. Granted you didn't specify exactly which measures, or what timeline, but I think the below shows more than just a fraction of a degree over the next few decades

Think their predictions of what happens in 2100 will come true? They can’t even predict the weather tomorrow. They’ve been wrong all along the way.

I have no idea if those charts are what the human impacts are or if it’s predicted rate of change compared to what the rates of change were in the past. If it’s the latter, that doesn’t tell you anything about humans contribution. Furthermore, if you look out a decade or two, it is a tony fraction. No discussion of any topic would make huge drastic investments based on something not forecasted to matter for several decades. Especially when previous forecasts have all been wrong.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Regardless of whether the rise in temperature is due to human input (or largely due to human input) or not, we are charged with being good stewards of Mother Earth. I think we have an ethical obligation to take measures to minimize our impact on the environment around us. Some of the remedies discussed are not feasible without a significant impact on countries' economies. That alone will eventually create enough distress within said countries to push back enough for those initiatives to fail. The changes that need to be implemented should be done in a way to be as minimally impactful as possible. I do believe there is too much hysteria and too little unbiased research to support what is being said. Not saying it isn't true, just that there needs to be a better understanding of the impact while implementing measures for good stewardship.

 

[Sidewalking]

I don't know what information you read that suggests that "every" model/prediction is wrong, but the reality is that it doesn't really matter what you think. The facts are this: Sea levels are rising more quickly now that they have in the past, and coastal communities all over this great country are spending gobs and gobs of tax payer money (much of it federal funds) to adapt.

We can argue about the "cause" (man-made vs. naturally occurring) of sea level rise all we want, but that is ultimately a waste of time won't change anything. Maybe, just maybe, we should take our collective heads out of the sand and try implementing some mitigation strategies in conjunction with adaptation strategies. Mitigation will be a lot less expensive and provide time to develop better (i.e. less expensive) strategies to adapt. I would also be willing to bet that there are some amazing economic opportunities associated with mitigation that this great country is missing.

Sea levels have fluctuated for eons. Nothing alarming about current fluctuations globally. Please go find one single environmental prediction model that has been accurate and report back. Just one. See you next century.

 

[MWBATL]

Regardless of whether the rise in temperature is due to human input (or largely due to human input) or not, we are charged with being good stewards of Mother Earth. I think we have an ethical obligation to take measures to minimize our impact on the environment around us. Some of the remedies discussed are not feasible without a significant impact on countries' economies. That alone will eventually create enough distress within said countries to push back enough for those initiatives to fail. The changes that need to be implemented should be done in a way to be as minimally impactful as possible. I do believe there is too much hysteria and too little unbiased research to support what is being said. Not saying it isn't true, just that there needs to be a better understanding of the impact while implementing measures for good stewardship.

A thoughtful response which I endorse!

 

[MWBATL]

Yes, yes there is. Straight from IPCC. And the RCP numbers are different scenarios based on what measures are taken. Granted you didn't specify exactly which measures, or what timeline, but I think the below shows more than just a fraction of a degree over the next few decades

So, let me get this straight...if we do the WORST according to the IPCC models (which have thus far been wrong), we will experience a sea level rise of....gee, almost 3 whole feet in about a century.

Given that the Great Barrier Reef has survived sea level changes of nearly 300 feet, color me not so worried....

 

[Sidewalking]

You have got to be kidding!!! Do you seriously believe that every scientist in every country in the world is falsifying data to support AGW just to keep money flowing? You must have a very poor opinion of scientists and engineers. Dadgum man, most of us probably work for government agencies in some way shape or form as consultants or employees....are you suggesting that we all falsify data to come to a pre-determined outcome? Do you want to come down to Key Largo and explain to all those homeowners that the sea water that has been sitting in their roads for 3+ months was just an illusion? If I schedule that meeting will you come down and explain your truth of AGW to the homeowners? I can just see it, you stand up in front of the crowd and tell them, "Everything is fine...the sea level is not rising and all those scientists are liars". Those good folks would run you out of town on a rail.

By the way sir...you may also want to ask who is funding the "anti-AGW" studies. Is it possible that those are funded by the coal, oil, automotive, etc. industries that have the most to lose in the transition to renewables?

Take a deep breath and prove my point wrong. Money matters on both sides of this issue. Group think is another problem. Leftist ideologies running amok in academia are another. And yes, I do think science has become very flawed in the last few decades. "Scientists" no longer seem to embrace scientific theory and hypothesis.

I'd tell the folks in Key Largo they should have built on higher ground. Cry me a river and raise sea water a tad more.

 

[Sidewalking]

Regardless of whether the rise in temperature is due to human input (or largely due to human input) or not, we are charged with being good stewards of Mother Earth. I think we have an ethical obligation to take measures to minimize our impact on the environment around us. Some of the remedies discussed are not feasible without a significant impact on countries' economies. That alone will eventually create enough distress within said countries to push back enough for those initiatives to fail. The changes that need to be implemented should be done in a way to be as minimally impactful as possible. I do believe there is too much hysteria and too little unbiased research to support what is being said. Not saying it isn't true, just that there needs to be a better understanding of the impact while implementing measures for good stewardship.

Stop being so rational.....that is so first quarter of the 20th century. Get with the times

 

[MWBATL]

Take a deep breath and prove my point wrong. Money matters on both sides of this issue. Group think is another problem. Leftist ideologies running amok in academia are another. And yes, I do think science has become very flawed in the last few decades. "Scientists" no longer seem to embrace scientific theory and hypothesis.

I'd tell the folks in Key Largo they should have built on higher ground. Cry me a river and raise sea water a tad more.

As an FYI, to get a building permit in south Louisiana these days, you must be building at a elevation that is 11 or 12 feet ABOVE "base flood elevation"...I would think a 2 -3 foot rise would not be very problematic given that.....

 

[armeck]

So, let me get this straight...if we do the WORST according to the IPCC models (which have thus far been wrong), we will experience a sea level rise of....gee, almost 3 whole feet in about a century.

Given that the Great Barrier Reef has survived sea level changes of nearly 300 feet, color me not so worried....

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#

Test it out yourself, hope there are parts of Savannah you aren't too partial to.

EDIT: Ooof. Check out St. Simons area as well.

 

[Sidewalking]

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#

Test it out yourself, hope there are parts of Savannah you aren't too partial to.

EDIT: Ooof. Check out St. Simons area as well.

So everyone on St. Simons has been warned. Time to move out folks!

Anyone wanting to sell their future underwater reefs for cheap give me a holler. I'll give you a few pennies on the dollar to help you out.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#

Test it out yourself, hope there are parts of Savannah you aren't too partial to.

EDIT: Ooof. Check out St. Simons area as well.

There are so many idiotic things about that site. First of all, according to the IPCC and NOAA's forecasts for sea level rise, they are expecting a 1 foot rise in about 40 years. Look at the scale on that page - you can't look at a view of anything less than a 1 foot rise, LOL. And it goes up to 10 feet. THE WORLD IS ENDING!

 

[Sidewalking]

There are so many idiotic things about that site. First of all, according to the IPCC and NOAA's forecasts for sea level rise, they are expecting a 1 foot rise in about 40 years. Look at the scale on that page - you can't look at a view of anything less than a 1 foot rise, LOL. And it goes up to 10 feet. THE WORLD IS ENDING!

Not if you have some property above the Mount Everest base camps and a bug out boat. You snooze you lose.