Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise

a reply to: Krazysh0t

When Bangladesh is underwater people will notice.

originally posted by: gspat
You stated what you stated with a deliberate purpose in mind, to state that humans and only humans cause whatever shtf moment you want to bring forward. In this case sea levels...

Strawman. I never said that humans are solely responsible for changing the climate. Humans contribution is in ADDITION to the natural causes of climate change. Fun fact, the contributing factors are cumulative.

Nice to see your graph is fairly short... It makes the "Hockey Stick" effect you want to emphasize stand out nicely.

*facepalm*

Do you know the speed of sea level rise during any time frame before the span your graph shows? Or does that context not matter because it doesn't help you and your thread?

It's actually irrelevant compared to the information being presented.

please go ahead, strawman me again...

I see you don't know what a strawman argument is, because I haven't strawmanned you once.

Sea level rise average is about 7 in/century. This doesn't seem much past that and seeing as how it's bound to fluctuate anyways, more or less seems to be as expected.

Got a link to this claim?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Krazysh0t

When Bangladesh is underwater people will notice.

No, they'll just invent some new excuse to ridicule and deny the people pointing out the problem. I mean this is literally evidence of exactly what the deniers wanted, proof that climate scientists' warnings ARE coming true and they are still thinking up the most ridiculous reasons to debate anything but the data being presented.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what's your solution?

(other than water wings and snorkels)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I found out what a temporal GP model is

Gaussian processes (GP) provide an elegant method for modeling non-linear functions in the Bayesian framework (Rasmussen and Williams, 2006). They are widely used for modeling spatio-temporal phenomena, Appearing in Proceedings of the 15 th International Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS ) 2012, La Palma, Canary Islands. Volume XX of JMLR: W&CP XX. Copyright 2012 by the authors. where a typical problem is to model an unknown field as a function of location and time using a set of noisy measurements. Many other classical tools, such as em- pirical orthogonal functions, kriging, Kalman filtering and smoothing, are based on modeling either the tem- poral or spatial structure but not both

Efficient Gaussian Process Inference for Short-Scale Spatio-Temporal Modeling

Still don't really have any idea what it means in the scope of their paper though, even if they smooth out and find a mean average the effects of the natural phenomena are still in the data, it's a shame they didn't incorporate satellite telemetry data as well

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Well of course I am attributing it to global warming. So are the scientists in the study.

The contradiction of global warming is CO2 levels even though a NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere.

What? Prove it.

The sun heats up the planet more than anything else, so this is the most important factor

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

science.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what's your solution?

(other than water wings and snorkels)

Solution? I try to avoid the solution conversation because so many deniers attempt to use solution proposals and ideas (like carbon credits) as evidence that climate change isn't real. I'd rather not give fallacious ammo to the people I'm debating until they actually accept that it is real.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here we go.

We can't talk about solutions until we get enough true believers on board because the solutions themselves are so unpalatable, that anyone who isn't a true believer will balk.

Just as I thought.

Personally, if the solutions were obvious and simple and readily available, then they'd be done regardless of who believed what.

But this only reinforces my belief that it is a sham garnered to manipulate economies, manipulate ideologies, and remove freedoms without any real look at changing the dynamics.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Well of course I am attributing it to global warming. So are the scientists in the study.

The contradiction of global warming is CO2 levels even though a NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere.

What? Prove it.

The sun heats up the planet more than anything else, so this is the most important factor

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

science.nasa.gov...

You realize that is only talking about the upper atmosphere and isn't directly saying that CO2 cools the entire atmosphere? Right? The reason for that is because the CO2 in the upper atmosphere reflected incoming heat away from the atmosphere. This is the same thing as when CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere on the planet, just in reverse.

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

a reply to: Discotech

It may help to follow up on this study and read the peer review analyses of it to see if any other scientists point this out.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here we go.

We can't talk about solutions until we get enough true believers on board because the solutions themselves are so unpalatable, that anyone who isn't a true believer will balk.

Just as I thought.

Personally, if the solutions were obvious and simple and readily available, then they'd be done regardless of who believed what.

But this only reinforces my belief that it is a sham garnered to manipulate economies, manipulate ideologies, and remove freedoms without any real look at changing the dynamics.

What the... I refuse to answer your question and you found some way to spin that like I was being deceptive? I want you to know that it is responses like this that result in me giving you the answer I did to your question. You don't care about debating solutions; you just wanted to use my ideas to yell "SEE! TOTALITARIANISM!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The more heat that gets defected away in the upper atmosphere the cooler the entire planet will be. The most significant heating element of the earth is the sun even if you trap the earths own generated heat. This planet would be completely frozen or super heated in days without our upper atmosphere's thermostat.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

Yea no #, but none of what you are saying has to do with global warming or climate change. We are talking about the heat that actually makes it THROUGH the upper atmosphere thus ending up trapped here, not the heat that gets reflected away from the planet.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I completely believe this. I am buying cheap property right now around our area getting ready. I don't care what the structure looks like, just the piece of land to hand down to my kids.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think every scientist agrees climate change is real, even the deniers. The major disagreement between believers and deniers is what is the driver behind it.
A solution isn't that difficult no? What would animals do?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then prove me wrong.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think every scientist agrees climate change is real, even the deniers. The major disagreement between believers and deniers is what is the driver behind it.
A solution isn't that difficult no? What would animals do?

A solution for natural climate change would look radically different than a solution to man-made climate change. We have FAR more control over stopping man-made climate change than natural climate change. In fact, any solution to natural climate changes is pretty much just move to another location or invent technology to cope with encroaching seas.

originally posted by: zedy63
humans existed much longer than 2800 years ago

100's of thousands of years ago when their dna/genes were tweaked

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then prove me wrong.

Doesn't work that way. Sorry. The onus is on you to prove climate change wrong by showing the data is wrong. The onus ISN'T on me to let you assume the data is flawed and there is a conspiracy to manipulate the masses with science then have me prove there isn't such a thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What? Prove it