Climate change would swamp Trump’s border wall

a reply to: Greven

To be honest, I don't even see the question in your post.

You've posted some charts that indicate C02 is a greenhouse gas, but where is the question?

Maybe it's the reason you don't get a response even though you've posted it several times in different threads?

question

a reply to: D8Tee
That's the basic science behind AGW.

Alone, it's more of a statement than a question, but when you write something such as...

originally posted by: D8Tee
Has climate change become dogma that must not be questioned?

...and said statement was posted in response, then the question is implicit - do you have an argument against that point?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee
That's the basic science behind AGW.

Alone, it's more of a statement than a question, but when you write something such as...

originally posted by: D8Tee
Has climate change become dogma that must not be questioned?

...and said statement was posted in response, then the question is implicit - do you have an argument against that point?

Can't argue with a point I still don't understand.

Whats the implicit question?

With regards to this thread, I don't believe that climate change is making it unimaginably difficult to engineer building a border wall.

I agree with previous posters that other factors are at play as far as the Rio Grande having some flooding issues.

originally posted by: yuppa
Oh excuse me i meant AGW Anthropomorphic Global warming. Stop trying to be cute. you know what i was referencing.

Cute? Who is being cute here?
Global warming vs climate change

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Its weird. the atmosphere is made up of 0.8 percent CO2. ANimals and natural processes put out extreme amounts of it more than man does.

Gas percentages can work like that.

Let sbreak down the 97 percent of CLIMATE SCIENTIST agree on global warming. ITS VERY SPECIFIC. CLimate scientist. not all other scientific fields correct?

Climate scientists also study natural climate change too.

Out of a estimated 100 million scientist exist on the planet at this time. No way in all of hell have they all been polled and asked. So this is the question how many climatologist are there? Estimates are between 10,000 to 50,000(thats being generous)

Way to pull those figures out of your ass. I had to snip the rest of your non-scientific argument there as I don't care about that. I only care about scientific arguments about why Climate Change isn't real. Your opinions or the opinions of some dupe telling you what you want to hear doesn't count as a scientific argument.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Krazysh0t
There is a solution: One - stop being closed minded.
snip

I don't know why you even brought this up. At no point did I use the term "settled science" not even once in this thread. If there is ever a strawman you are pitching. THIS is it.

You want answers? You want possible solutions? Then y'all need to get off the high horse. Sorry, but some of you hold yourselves in such high esteem you're starting to get a nose bleed.

Psh... Ad hominem...

Accept that there will be those who think of things differently. Accept that there are those who do not feel that man made CC has been proven, just that CC does exist, but question how much humans are in fact contributing to it. Accept those who are skeptical.......and stop treating them like heretics to some damn religion (the religion of man made CC).

Even if man made CC is true: there are NO simple solutions.

None.

I can accept that just fine. What I CAN'T accept are the people who don't use a scientific argument to disprove CC and instead get defensive and irate with me for asking them to stick to the science.

We can not expect the world to simply give up fossil fuels over night. Not without a viable replacement that can go into effect overnight.
We can not power the entire world on wind power, solar power and wave power. It's good that some places can help with it, but none of those things are the answer the the entire world's power needs.

Understand the punishing people and corps is not the answer either. Never has been, never will be. Carbon Credits are a scam. Taxing people for Carbon is a scam. Those things are about making governments money, not saving the world.

If more people here on ATS and out there in the world could understand what I've written above, you really would get much more meaningful convos here and everywhere.

Oh, and one last thing: Politics. It has NO business being in science......just a science should NEVER play politics either.

Science should be just that: science. A hammer doesn't care if someone is right or left. It's just a tool, but it should never be used as a tool to hurt someone.

You know there could be better solutions to the Climate Change problem if people would stop kneejerk denying and using "carbon credits" as a means to disprove a theory. Really. Who uses a solution to say the problem isn't real? Now THAT isn't science. That is politics. Plain and simple and you are the one guilty of mixing them together here. Bringing up all this offtopic bs you just said to me.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think Eric makes a good point...id be far more likely to get on board and come together for solutions if people would quit insulting me for minor differences in opinion.

Have I insulted you in this thread?

i mean, do you really think anyone would argue that we need to clean up the Pacific Garbage Patch? Eliminate pharmaceutical and mercury contents in the water supply? Continue to eliminate hydrocarbon emissions? Does anyone really want to make these things worse?

I doubt it....so what, exactly, is the problem? That they don't agree with every last detail of the "why are we doing these things"? That they don't want to pay additional taxes to clean up the waste pushed on us by industry (the same industry that continues to diminish labors cut of the pie during each annual inflationary cycle)?

The problem is that these things aren't enough. There are more factors that are contributing to the destruction of these ecosystems. Namely AGW.

It seems to me that if the people who belief in man made climate change would quit trying to bicker over how much smarter they are, and instead just start DOING things that don't continue kicking the ass of the middle class, there would be zero resistance. I just don't think its about action. Thats the problem. If it were, action would already be taking place.

"Doing things" requires people to change their ways. Which means that there will be people upset that they cannot keep doing things the way they have been doing it traditionally. Thus your statement here is hypocritical. It is impossible for me to do things without the middle class feeling some sort of brunt.

But keep in mind that regardless if government wants to come around or even you conservatives. There ARE businesses that do care about this and DO accept the science.
Big companies defy Trump on climate change

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ill give you one great example of something that changed in my lifetime that shouldn't hve, and should be pushed back: buying throwaway crap. Yes, Moore's law makes tech obsolete quickly. But replacing a cell phone yearly (or more) isn't the right way to handle this.

We turn the natural elements of this planet into toxic garbage. That is a special skill we have. And since they "opened china" we've tripled the rate at which we complete this toxic conversion.

The earth being warmer won't kill all life in the ocean. Fukushima and corexit can. I think your priorities are all backwards.

The earth will self cleanse, and will return to another ice age. Its how it works. More carbon = more/larger plants, which then pull carbon out and enrich the air with oxygen. This makes larger animals, and when it all dies the carbon is locked away in the earth again. Unfortunately, this carbon will have a toxic sludge of our chemicals mixed in with it.

RE: insults....no, you don't insult people as much as I can tell (not on purpose). You're good folk, i like talking with you because your good folk that can disagree with me politely. The reason I mention it was this line in your prior post:

I'm asking people to come together and think of solutions so we can address the coming problems brought on by our own negligence.

Its hard to "come together" when you have one group belittling another group. I can tell you honestly, the AGW group belittles other groups.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well my pitch when it comes to CC isn't that I'm scared of the end of the world. The world isn't going to come to the end due to MMCC. The planet has existed in the past with MUCH higher levels of CO2 with life on the planet. Complicated life at that (age of the dinosaurs and earlier). So I know life will be fine.

What I'm worried about is society. Humans have a tendency to spread out and take up as much space as they can. Plus we have a tendency to live near the costs. As water levels rise, this will displace a lot of people. I mean most of the state of Florida is predicted to sink into the ocean. That's a LOT of people. Luckily they'll be able to relocate within the country, but there are whole countries that are ready to sink under the water. These people will become displaced refugees.

On top of that, there is the added difficulty of dealing with nature as climate change ramps up. Bigger storms require greater engineering feats for our buildings to weather. Droughts need to be combated by shipping in water or redirecting rivers (which has their own awful envirnomental impacts). Much capital is lost figuring out how to stay on top of quickly escalating temperatures and extreme weather events. It's a case where less money would have been spent up front trying to fix it before it became a problem instead of spending fortunes doing something about it when it is a huge cluster#.

Its hard to "come together" when you have one group belittling another group. I can tell you honestly, the AGW group belittles other groups.

There are a fair share of AGW skeptics who are quick to insult too. It's not just my side.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I mean most of the state of Florida is predicted to sink into the ocean. That's a LOT of people. Luckily they'll be able to relocate within the country, but there are whole countries that are ready to sink under the water. These people will become displaced refugees.

Sea levels been rising at the same rate for the last couple centuries.
Looking on this chart, is there a correlation with C02?
I see no increase in sea level rise.

a reply to: D8Tee

You got a source for that graph? Because these sources all disagree with you.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes.
The source is NOAA.
The C02 data is not on their chart of course.
NOAA TIdes and Currents link
There are about sixty good-quality, century-long records of sea-level around the world. A couple of them extend back more than 200 years.

Even though the satellite measurements show no acceleration in sea-level rise, changes in how the satellite data is processed and adjusted have substantially increased the amount of sea-level rise which the University of Colorado reports. There are many different factors which can affect reported trends, but which are difficult to ascertain with certainty, and are subject to substantial and often mysterious corrections.

The century long records that are taken from stable areas (ie no land subsidance or tectonic rebound) show no increase in the rate of sea level rise. I'll trust them over the satellite data that is being generated now. This is another actual tidal gauge chart, not satellite data, where is the increase rate of rise?
The the sea-level trend at Wismar, Germany, has been linear at 1.4 mm/year for 150 years.
The most important thing that everyone should know about climate change and sea-level is that there's been no detectable sustained acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. All around the world, the best sea-level measurements all show the same thing: an almost perfectly linear trend. Sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO2 at 0.040% of the atmosphere, than it was when CO2 was less than 0.031%.

Subsidence, rather than global sea-level rise, is the main factor affecting many coasts, especially the U.S. Gulf Coast.

a reply to: D8Tee

Improvements in recording procedures is not a slight against data accuracy. I hope you know that one of MY sources is also an NOAA link. So I have a feeling that you are cherry picking data here if the NOAA has come to a different conclusion after looking at the data you provided.

Text from my NOAA link:

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hope you know that one of MY sources is also an NOAA link.

I was fully aware.

So I have a feeling that you are cherry picking data here if the NOAA has come to a different conclusion after looking at the data you provided.

I was not cherry picking. I picked on of the many long term records of a location that is not affected by either land subsidence or tectonic rebound. Are you aware that sea level is falling in some locations? It's not that global warming is responsible for tectonic movement, it's just the way geological forces work.
Now if we are to look at Florida, we can see how land subsidence comes into play. There are a number of factors at work here, one of them is withdrawing vast quantities of water from the aquifers to provide for the population, which in turn leads to the land subsidence. The following is from a Florida station, while the record is not so long, it does show how the sea level rise is more than average, due to land subsidence. Now, if this depressurization of the zone being depleted was associated with fossil fuel extraction, it can be compensated for by pumping seawater back in to compensate for the fossil fuel extraction. If it is in fact from depletion of a ground water aquifer, there is no solution other than to quit withdrawing from the zone. I am not overly familiar with the reason for the land subsidence in the Florida area.
If you would like to read up on the errors associated with the satellite measurements and how they are trying to compensate for them, try this link, it shows the issues that envisat faces. And no, the link is not from some conspiracy site, it 's from envisat itself.Link If you would like to debate the validity of the satellite measurements, I would welcome that.

Text from my NOAA link:

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

Correct. That is saying the same thing that I am. When all of this is taken into account, the average sea level rise is 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm/yr according to NOAA and the IPCC when measured by tidal gauges.

a reply to: D8Tee

First. Yes I am aware that the sea level is dropping in places. My point is that the overall sea level is rising. NOAA agrees despite the NOAA data you are providing. I'm not trying to dispute the data either. I just feel like you are using one or two cases to prove a trend that needs to be proven with statistical sampling. It's easy to make your case with isolated examples, but to understand global sea levels we need statistical plotting of ALL these different sea levels around the world and how they are changing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just feel like you are using one or two cases to prove a trend that needs to be proven with statistical sampling.

How can you make that accusation when the literature from the IPCC and NOAA itself say sea level is rising 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm/yr on average???? Like I have pointed out, I did not cherry pick anything, I took one of the good quality, long term records of an area that is not rising or falling due to geological activity.

NOAA agrees despite the NOAA data you are providing. I'm not trying to dispute the data either.

Did I ever say the sea level was not rising? It's you that makes it into something it is not with tales of climate refugees due to global warming ,thats utter nonsense. Once again an alarmist has no argument except their MSM narrative. NOAA and the IPCC have done the statistical sampling, not me and there is nothing you could dispute with their data. Until climate change is linked to land subsidence and plate tectonics, all the babble about coastal areas being inundated due to climate change inundated are wrong, it's nature that is responsible, not the great Satan C02.

There are about sixty good-quality, century-long records of sea-level around the world. A couple of them extend back more than 200 years. But they all show the same thing with regards to accel­er­a­tion: none of them have meas­ured a statistically significant increase in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. At most locations it's been more than a century since the rate of sea-level rise meas­ur­ably increased

Here's the NOAA sea level page.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just feel like you are using one or two cases to prove a trend that needs to be proven with statistical sampling.

How can you make that accusation when the literature from the IPCC and NOAA itself say sea level is rising 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm/yr on average???? Like I have pointed out, I did not cherry pick anything, I took one of the good quality, long term records of an area that is not rising or falling due to geological activity.

But the IPCC and NOAA agree with me that sea level is rising faster now. So clearly there is more data we aren't looking beyond just the stuff you provided that is causing them to come to this conclusion.

NOAH and the IPCC have done the statistical sampling, not me. Until climate change is linked to land subsidence and plate tectonics, all the babble about coastal areas being inundated due to climate change inundated are wrong, it's nature that is responsible, not the great Satan C02.

Yes and they came back with a different conclusion than the one you are telling me. Why is that? Have you looked into it yet? I mean you DO know that in the past when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were naturally higher, global temperatures were higher right? Don't you think that is a significant detail?

There are about sixty good-quality, century-long records of sea-level around the world. A couple of them extend back more than 200 years. But they all show the same thing with regards to accel­er­a­tion: none of them have meas­ured a statistically significant increase in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. At most locations it's been more than a century since the rate of sea-level rise meas­ur­ably increased

Here's the NOAA sea level page.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

It's not about a significant increase. It is about rate of change of the increase. The derivative.

This Rio Grande?

FABENS, Tex. — On maps, the mighty Rio Grande meanders 1,900 miles, from southern Colorado’s San Juan Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico. But on the ground, farms and cities drink all but a trickle before it reaches the canal that irrigates Bobby Skov’s farm outside El Paso, hundreds of miles from the gulf.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I grew up spending lots of time at my grandparents house near fabens. Got my haircut at this place in Fabens. We'd go into the small grocery there afterwards to get non produce (produce was bartered for with other farmers, not bought)

Because of the issues with the Rio Grande, Elephant Butte is a primary source of agricultural water. Which is New Mexico's way of stealing the Rio Grande before it gets to Texas.

Some details around how it is billed:

www.ebid-nm.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the IPCC and NOAA agree with me that sea level is rising faster now. So clearly there is more data we aren't looking beyond just the stuff you provided that is causing them to come to this conclusion.

No, they don't agree that the tidal gauges show anything of the sort as I have pointed out to you.

Yes and they came back with a different conclusion than the one you are telling me. Why is that? Have you looked into it yet?

No, they haven't come to a different conclusion with regards to the tidal gauges. Yes I have looked into it, have you?

It's not about a significant increase. It is about rate of change of the increase. The derivative.

Again, the tidal gauges have shown no rate of change in the increase.
The satellite data does not support the tidal gauges, there is a 10 cm discrepancy that does not show up on the gauges now, what are we to believe?
Since 1992 the GMSL according to the satellite data, is shown to have risen by 70mm, or 7.0cm. 7.0 cm should be noticeable on all tidal gauges. And, as an average, some would have 10 cm. You can’t miss that. Model away but you can’t eradicate that 10cm potential error.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xtrozero

I grew up spending lots of time at my grandparents house near fabens. Got my haircut at this place in Fabens. We'd go into the small grocery there afterwards to get non produce (produce was bartered for with other farmers, not bought)

Because of the issues with the Rio Grande, Elephant Butte is a primary source of agricultural water. Which is New Mexico's way of stealing the Rio Grande before it gets to Texas.

Some details around how it is billed:

I think the Rio could increase tenfold and a drop of water would still not make it to the ocean...hehe Also if this happened I don't think the wall would be anywhere in the first 100 pages of major concerns...