More Than 400 U.S. Cities May Be 'Past The Point Of No Return' With Sea Level Threats

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

So your response is that since we can't get the whole world on board, we should do nothing?

Is that really fair? You can't make any significant impact on the global climate by yourself even if you dedicated your life to it. You need others to jump on board with your ideas. So far, the green energy movement seems to be progressing at break neck speeds with renewable energy costs becoming close to or even less than fossil fuels. If we ever find a fuel source for personal transportation that doesn't pollute, we can almost erase our footprint on the C02 emission part overnight. But there seems to be some stumbling block$ in the way. (big oil)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

So your response is that since we can't get the whole world on board, we should do nothing?

My solution is before implementing laws and taxes and pissing away trillions of dollars on a global scale problem that won't be won't be solved unless a workable global scale solution is agreed to by the globe then we aren't solving anything. I know that no matter what the topic is, people want to do something just so they can feel better that they did regardless of results. To me it's a waste and very foolish. Not to mention in the end the real problem with man made global warming is man and an increasing population. . And I have yet to hear anyone sack up and say how to deal with the root problem.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Stop confusing the narrative. Man made climate change and natural climate change work in tandem to do their destruction. Though man made climate change has effected the climate MUCH differently than the Earth's natural processes should be effecting it. Hence it is real.

OK, what percentage does Man affect the climate?

And remember, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, but it comes along with some other baggage, like perhaps the answer is "not very much".

a reply to: network dude

I don't know, but I can go look for the best guesses that scientists have at the moment.

ETA: Sorry this source is from 2011 and is 4 years old, but I can't find anything more recent. So I'm thinking that this number is still the most accurate one.
Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

This has happened in the past the world over. Loved the scuba diving off cozumel with the huge underwater statue. Difference is we've got a generation or two warning. More than enough time to build cities elsewhere.

Non issue.

Oh no, not more doom porn negative low vibration energy.

If the elite really were speaking the truth, they would be spending their own money to protect their homelands instead of taxing the life-force out of the 99.99% poor.

Why not kill the demon possessed elite, stick them along every beach like Easter Island statues. Then with all the sht and bad karma in them, Mother Gaia won't come anywhere near the inner lands with her rising oceans.

The conservatives will be whining when the water is lapping at their front door...."why didn't someone warn us"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

I don't know, but I can go look for the best guesses that scientists have at the moment.

ETA: Sorry this source is from 2011 and is 4 years old, but I can't find anything more recent. So I'm thinking that this number is still the most accurate one.
Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Ok, we know from history, that before AGW:

6 mm/yr, as a result of melting of major ice sheets

So if you are right, then the seas should be rising at 3 X 6mm/y or 18mm a year.

Is that the case? (I honestly don't know, but if it is, then your math is correct, if not, then well, it isn't)


ETA:
Uh oh,
(from the same source)

Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 mm and +2.9 mm per year ± 0.4 mm since 1993

I think we may need to do a bit more modeling on all this before we use your numbers.

I think every citizen needs to sign a contract saying whether they do or do not believe that climate change is an issue that the human population and their governments need to address and spend tax money or surcharges on.

Then, when their home or city is wiped out and they come whining for help, those who checked the Do Not Believe and Do Not Use My Money box get no assistance.

How's that?

Taking any climate change prediction seriously today is difficult. We have way to many misses to believe they know what they are talking about.
The Arctic sea ice was supposed to be gone by now. It's not, it's bigger in fact.
Something else that would help the cause is to have a viable solution, they dont.

a reply to: network dude

That only holds true if the correlation between carbon increase and melting of the ice sheets is a linear correlation.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I think every citizen needs to sign a contract saying whether they do or do not believe that climate change is an issue that the human population and their governments need to address and spend tax money or surcharges on.

Then, when their home or city is wiped out and they come whining for help, those who checked the Do Not Believe and Do Not Use My Money box get no assistance.

How's that?

Probably good as long as no money is taken from those people at all. Not one penny in additional costs for it. They can up and expand home owners insurance or let that money collect some interest and then be prepped to go at it alone. None of the we will take your money but you can choose not to take help.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I think every citizen needs to sign a contract saying whether they do or do not believe that climate change is an issue that the human population and their governments need to address and spend tax money or surcharges on.

Then, when their home or city is wiped out and they come whining for help, those who checked the Do Not Believe and Do Not Use My Money box get no assistance.

How's that?

Sounds fair. And if the climate shifts to a cooling model in the next 20-30 years, all those who signed on to the "it's a cycle" theory can bitch slap all of the AGWers.

(insert the batman slapping robin meme here)

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Taking any climate change prediction seriously today is difficult. We have way to many misses to believe they know what they are talking about.
The Arctic sea ice was supposed to be gone by now. It's not, it's bigger in fact.
Something else that would help the cause is to have a viable solution, they dont.

This is complete bull#.

How reliable are climate models?

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise: (I put it below this quoted text)

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

a reply to: Vasa Croe

It happened before for the same reason different catalyst. Changing the chemical make-up of the atmosphere causes the climate to change whether it's from a catastrophic event or orbital changes. We happen to be the reason the atmosphere is changing this time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

That only holds true if the correlation between carbon increase and melting of the ice sheets is a linear correlation.

isn't that what the models say though? How else would you be able to calculate the 75% you mentioned?
remember, you can't have it both ways.

For the record, I don't doubt warming at all. I do doubt how much affect we have over the enormity of Nature. I feel certain we can screw up things on a local scale within minutes, but to screw up the planet, takes a lot more effort than we seem to have. But I could be wrong. Time will tell, and sensationalizing possibilities is something we like to call Hyperbole.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What are the solutions? Everyone talks about it like it is "settled science". What are the solutions?

(yes, I read your other thread)

... Your cheap shot notwithstanding, I don't admittedly have many solutions. I wish I did. I'm still trying to convince people that it is a real thing. Seeing how you deliberately used a term that you knew I didn't like, I see that you fall in that camp as well.

I won't be convinced of man made climate change until I see the solutions proposed. You can't sell me on a problem and not a solution.

This is why I doubt man made climate change. The government and every follower of it wants everyone convinced, so when they DO offer a solution (probably having to do with global government, or taxes and loss of freedoms) then they'll have everyone on board with it. And it'll be a fait accompli.

a reply to: network dude

I was watching a PBS show about the NC coastline and it's changes and hidden treasures and I was amazed to hear that the coast has risen more than 30 feet over the last several thousand years. So Sea level rise is inevitable, and building a city on the edge of an ocean only proves that the engineers who designed it were really, REALLY bad at research. Seas are going to rise until we enter the next ice age and more ice starts to form and everything cools down a bit. But to suggest that AGW or whatever the catch phrase is today, is solely responsible, is not at all accurate. (based on historical evidence)

You've indicated that you accept the prevailing scientific opinion for a rise in sea level over thousands of years since the last glacial maximum and in the very same post, dismiss the prevailing scientific opinion that there will be additional sea level rise beyond what would be naturally occurring because of a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why is the scientific establishment trustworthy only for the portion of sea level rise that agrees with conservative politics?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i also can't help but wonder if you even read the whole article you link to and the links in it.

yes your right when you say Jeb said humans contribute, but he also said that ... well here are a couple of quotes from your article and it's links.
your link, they are out of order, but i thought and felt that the first i quote should be put first.

But in May, he said it is "arrogant" to claim that the science on the issue is settled, an argument he has been using since 2011.

But he reiterated his support for limiting federal involvement in the energy sector, including the government's current encouragement of renewable energy sources.

"Power generation should reflect, as much as possible, the diverse attributes and needs of states and their citizens," Bush said. "The federal government should not be dictating what types of power should be used where. It should not be picking winners and losers."

and here is the link to the bloomberg email interview linked to in the very first paragraph in your link.
Jeb Bush Takes Positions on Climate Change, EPA Rules, Other Energy Issues

so yes he says humans contribute, but he also says that the feds shouldn't be passing all kinds of laws and limiting who does what, and that the science is far from settled, same thing he's been saying since 2011 which has been pointed out serveral times in links in the articles and here is one that is right up your ally that says he has thats a year older than your link and it links.

Jeb Bush may be 'the smart brother' – but he's as much of a climate denier as any conservative

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I think every citizen needs to sign a contract saying whether they do or do not believe that climate change is an issue that the human population and their governments need to address and spend tax money or surcharges on.

Then, when their home or city is wiped out and they come whining for help, those who checked the Do Not Believe and Do Not Use My Money box get no assistance.

How's that?

Probably good as long as no money is taken from those people at all. Not one penny in additional costs for it. They can up and expand home owners insurance or let that money collect some interest and then be prepped to go at it alone. None of the we will take your money but you can choose not to take help.

Lets not get into that stupid "my tax money" BS argument. Pretend yours goes to war and I'll pretend mine goes to climate change, k?

And as for insurance? What do you mean? "They can up..." Who is "they?" And whose insurance is going to cover climate change? It already doesn't cover floods and other acts unless you have riders you pay up the nose for. Or you have government supplemented insurance if you're in a high-risk zone. Not sure what you're getting at here. You're either insured or your not. It's not an expandable thing.