Climate Change Skeptic; Change My Mind - Page 17 - Politics and Economics

Also sea level was 250 meters higher a couple hundred million years ago. 500 million years ago when CO2 was really high, sea levels were 400 meters higher.

02-10-2019 , 08:24 AM

#403

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

and you are qualified to make judgments? I like how you quote your previous posts because if you repeat stuff enough times some people will start to believe it.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels have been higher in the past than they are now.

I'm not, so I don't. I defer to the people who took the time to study this stuff to inform my views on the subject, and I'm not obnoxious enough to think that I know better, which is where you and I part company.

02-10-2019 , 03:42 PM

#404

e1cnr

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Don't they teach about critical thinking anymore. I just do not have the 'world view', and not willing to blindly accept generalized expert opinions. The sea level is staying the same or going down on the northern west coast of North America.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...ml?region=USNP

02-10-2019 , 04:35 PM

#405

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

feelings > expert opinion, amirite?

02-10-2019 , 04:45 PM

#406

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,714

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

I just do not have the 'world view', and not willing to blindly accept generalized expert opinions

Can you give an example of other beliefs you have that go against the vast majority of those who do it for a living?

02-10-2019 , 05:09 PM

#407

whosnext

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,733

(that you are willing to share publicly)

02-10-2019 , 05:16 PM

#408

Strontium Dog

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 356

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

Critical thinker in this thread

... who, while doubting the majority of experts wrt to rising sea levels due to climate change, cites a single NOAA page with 3 graphs relating to one particular geographic region to "prove" his point.

Here's a couple more links to help you - you may need to remove your fedora else it might get all messed up as your head explodes.

Sea Level Variations along the U.S. Pacific Northwest Coast: Tectonic and Climate Controls

Quote:

Analyses of the progressive multidecadal trends and climate-controlled annual variations in mean sea levels are presented for nine tide-gauge stations along the coast of the U.S. Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. The trends in relative sea levels are strongly affected by the tectonics of this region, characterized by significant alongcoast variations in changing land elevations measured by benchmarks and global positioning system data. These combined data sets document the existence of both submergent and emergent stretches of shore. The Pacific Northwest sea levels are also affected by variations in the monthly mean seasonal cycles, with its extreme water levels occurring in the winter during strong El Niños. To quantify this climate control and to derive improved multidecadal sea-level trends, separate evaluations of the winter and summer-averaged measured water levels have been undertaken. The resulting pair of linear regressions for each tide gauge shows a consistent difference in the mean water levels over the years, at their highest during the winters, reflecting the total magnitude in the seasonal cycle of water levels. Of importance, the degree of scatter in the summer averages is reduced compared with the annual averages, yielding sea-level trends that generally have the highest statistical significance. In contrast, the winter records emphasize the extreme water levels associated with strong El Niños, yielding a predictive correlation with the Multivariate El Niño/Southern Oscillation Index. Both trends in relative sea levels and extremes in the winter monthly elevations produced by El Niños are important to the Pacific Northwest coastal hazard assessments, combining with the multidecade increase in wave heights measured by buoys. With these multiple processes and their climate controls, the erosion hazards are projected to significantly increase in future decades.

and if that's too much for you maybe a simpler example will show that there are a few more factors in play than you are appreciating...

England is sinking while Scotland rises above sea levels, according to new study

Quote:

The new study shows that land levels could rise by up to 10cm in some areas of Scotland over the next century, offsetting the effects of sea level rise caused by global warming. But in parts of England, where the land is set to sink by up to 5cm over the next century, it could add between 10 to 33 per cent on sea level rises.

Thinker? ... doubtful.

02-10-2019 , 06:37 PM

#409

e1cnr

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,008

thx StrontDog for pointing out papers that say the ocean is not going to raise 6 feet in next 80 years in Alaska and Washington because the land is rising.

02-10-2019 , 07:41 PM

#410

Strontium Dog

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 356

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

thx StrontDog for pointing out papers that say the ocean is not going to raise 6 feet in next 80 years in Alaska and Washington because the land is rising.

No problem - everyone can just move to Alaska/Washington, or other places where plate techtonics cause the land to rise, when their homes are inundated.

Maybe we should start measuring sea levels at low tide - that way we'd have a few metres to play with before we got back to where we are now?

(also in before "how can sea level rise - by definition it's the level of the sea?")

02-12-2019 , 03:48 PM

#411

shorn7

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,495

02-12-2019 , 04:47 PM

#412

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Fascinating article about how the two different ways (sound waves in background radiation vs. direct observation of retreating stars) of measuring the Hubble constant (related to the expansion rate of the universe) come up with two sets of results that are are very close to each other within the set, but about 10% off from the other method.

I saw we make a thread and debate really basic aspects of this, like how gravity works, or maybe the speed of light, assuming of course the scientists themselves never thought of such things. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for laypeople to do.

I'm seeking out stuff online that matches my pre-conceived ideas now-- sorry, I mean I'm doing my research now.

02-12-2019 , 05:03 PM

#413

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Was OP's mind changed?

02-12-2019 , 05:24 PM

#414

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

I'm ready to debate the Higgs Boson too. I've read some blogs.

02-12-2019 , 05:58 PM

#415

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

I'm ready to debate the Higgs Boson too. I've read some blogs.

Fake news obvs, if they hadn't "found" it, their funding would have been cut off and they would have had to shut down their big accelerator toy. I have independently confirmed this by critically thinking about it.

02-12-2019 , 06:27 PM

#416

e1cnr

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Right, all the scientists are lying and committing research fraud, and Trump and the GOP are telling you the truth. Got it.

The fact that you call it "their" science kinda gives the game away. I don't think the word "science" means what you think it means.

Climate science is indeed a very complex field and the scientists who do this research spend years studying the subject. Unless you are qualified in this area, brushing off what they do with a trite statement like "it's complicated, they don't get it" is simply the height of arrogance on your part. What makes you think you know better than they do what needs to be accounted for? How do you know what is actually accounted for? What are your professional qualifications?

I have read some more climate research ... some is very good, some is so-so .. and some just re-tabulates or repeats other reports. I now feel that politicians, news media and some researchers are pushing worst case scenarios for some 'greater good'.

Please explain to me the reason and rational for inclusion in the IPCC's latest special report Chapter 5 - Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...r5_Low_Res.pdf

Also I do not understand why climate is the world's number one problem for many, but no mention of population. Please explain why this is not an issue.

02-12-2019 , 06:38 PM

#417

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

I have read some more climate research ... some is very good, some is so-so .. and some just re-tabulates or repeats other reports. I now feel that politicians, news media and some researchers are pushing worst case scenarios for some 'greater good'.

Please explain to me the reason and rational for inclusion in the IPCC's latest special report Chapter 5 - Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...r5_Low_Res.pdf

What was the reason they gave?

02-12-2019 , 06:43 PM

#418

Nittery

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 460

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

Also I do not understand why climate is the world's number one problem for many, but no mention of population. Please explain why this is not an issue.

Without the Krebs Cycle there would be no photosynthesis. The Deep State is always a step ahead.

02-12-2019 , 06:52 PM

#419

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

I don't know the answers to your questions, and I am not doing research for you unless you are willing to pay for my time. Or you could just google it.

If you'd like to proffer some credible evidence for the point of view that climate change *shouldn't* be one of the main areas of concern for humanity at this time, rather than JAQing off in the passive aggressive "tell me why" style typical of crackpots and conspiracy theorists, I might look into it.

Answer this for me though, why is "greater good" in quotes in what you wrote above? Is it because that, like Trump, you don't understand how quotes work, or do you genuinely believe that all these people have some ulterior motive? If it's the latter, what is the motive?

Last edited by d2_e4; 02-12-2019 at 06:58 PM.

02-12-2019 , 08:34 PM

#420

e1cnr

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,008

just to point out that many have cherry picked results and used them to help push what I perceive is their agenda

02-12-2019 , 08:58 PM

#421

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

just to point out that many have cherry picked results and used them to help push what I perceive is their agenda

OK, I'll bite. What is their agenda? What reason do all these people have to make this stuff up?

If the answer is money, can you please tell me how I can get in on this? I haven't found a way to claim my bounty from (((Soros))) for arguing with you on this forum yet, but I am certainly interested in the possibility.

02-12-2019 , 10:50 PM

#422

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,714

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

just to point out that many have cherry picked results and used them to help push what I perceive is their agenda

[citation needed]

02-12-2019 , 11:09 PM

#423

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,713

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1cnr

just to point out that many have cherry picked results and used them to help push what I perceive is their agenda

What do you mean by agenda? Like when some people use the word agenda, they mean something like "The Koch Brothers have an agenda when the fund climate denial"* The agenda is, they make a lot of money from polluting and they want to keep making a lot of money...from polluting.

What you're calling an "agenda" is just their opinions and beliefs? Or is it wanting the world to be better? Is that the agenda?

*https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/globa...ch-industries/