The oceans are rising!

[USincognito]

How about if global warming alarmists like Obama share a plane ride with their spouses when they're going to the same destination on the same day. When the alarmists start acting like global warming is real, people will take notice

"{Insert boogie person here} is a hypocrite" doesn't make the science go away.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Repeat it as often as you want. every global warming alarmist in any position of power promoted the exertion of power and control over people in order to push an agenda, which actually has nothing to do with climate

And what is that agenda that has nothing to do with climate that they push while claiming they are acting on climate change?

There is a broad consensus among global environmental scientists that climate change is a big concern. Politicians have made a few token responses to the problem, but based on the magnitude of what we are dealing with, one would hope that the response would be stronger.

So if they really are doing what you claim, and pushing agendas that have nothing to do with climate while claiming it has to do with climate, that is a major problem. Please give us an example of what you are talking about.

 

[DaisyDay]

Talk at the U.S. Naval War College by Jeremy Jackson

Author of seven books, Jackson has worked for Geosciences Research division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and is also the former director of the school’s Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation.

Evening Lecture | Jeremy Jackson: Sea Level Rise is Dangerous - YouTube
tl;dw version: The ocean is rising and there is a good (1 in 3) chance that it will rise over three feet by 2100.

Should we really care about 85 years from now? I know I won't be around.

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, grasping the after wind, lets talk about your concern about computer models.

If multiple computer models show a hurricane is coming, usually they do not agree where the hurricane will go but let us pretend they do, I can move to a location that the models do not show it is coming and hope the models are correct.

I don't know what news you watch, but on the news I watch, the different computer models are shown and they show very similar routes of the hurricanes. In fact they even have a name for it--spaghetti models. The various paths tracked by the various computer models look like strands of parallel cooked spaghetti on a plate. They trace in the same general direction. And usually the hurricane ends up going along the consensus path of the models. When they are predicting hurricanes for a day or two, the tracking is accurate. When stretched out to a week, the paths lose accuracy.

The same can be done for climate change if you like. Of course there is evidence that weather is somewhat , but not all that much, predictable using computer models. There is no good evidence to show how reliable computer models are at predicting climate changes.

You are aware that those who are familiar with computer modeling of climate disagree with you, yes? Among scientists there is strong agreement in the value of the models. So for you to overthrow a whole branch of science, you would need a thorough understanding of why those models that they trust cannot be trusted. Simply stating that you are right and the experts in the field are wrong is not adequate.

Since our weather predicting computer models often come to different conclusions and each of them turn out to be correct sometimes but not all the time, the fact that the computer models that you mention agree would seem to me to be less of a reason to be sure of them. It would seem that there is a possibility that they all agree because the people doing the programming are all relying upon the same basic assumptions. In other words the models agree because the programmers agree. Saying this is not accusing anyone of a conspiracy it is simply a matter of the consensus of opinion .

The models involve many different methods and different assumptions.

If each new model is nothing more than a rework of the past, why are the new models getting published? Are you suggesting that peer reviewers are too stupid to realize that everybody is just handing in the slight variations of the same homework, with nobody actually contributing anything new? One would think that they keep publishing the studies because each new study brings something new to the table.

If over 90 percent of people believe something is the case they usually will agree on the parameters within which that thing is the case and if only those in the 90 percent that agree are doing any of this modelling then it is somewhat safe to assume they are somewhat of the same mind and somewhat likely to model in a somewhat similar way using somewhat similar assumptions.

Not necessarily. Weather forecasters agree on the same parameters, but if they were to forecast the weather for a period of a month, and publish their predictions for the weather next month, we would find widely different forecasts. Differences in the way it is modeled leads to varying results. So in the near term weather forecasts are good (and the models tend to agree), but in the long term they disagree.

That is the point about climate models. Widely different model structures all predict global warming and rising seas and indicate carbon dioxide as the cause.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Should we really care about 85 years from now? I know I won't be around.

I will be long gone also 85 years from now.

But I suspect that of the children I now know, at least one of them will be alive 85 years from now. It is for them I write.

And per the OP, recent findings in Antarctica indicate the oceans will probably rise significantly more than had long been predicted.

 

[keith99]

Talk at the U.S. Naval War College by Jeremy Jackson


Evening Lecture | Jeremy Jackson: Sea Level Rise is Dangerous - YouTube
tl;dw version: The ocean is rising and there is a good (1 in 3) chance that it will rise over three feet by 2100.

Should we really care about 85 years from now? I know I won't be around.

I guess that depends on if you care in the slightest about your grandchildren.

Based on family history I expect my Grand Nephew to still be alive then. Also 3 feet 85 years from now will start showing well before then.

This in my book is one of the scarier predictions. Not so alarmist that it is easily dismissed (or will be in 10 years because important predictions have already been shown wrong) but alarming. 3 feet of ocean rise implies so many others things.

 

[Aldebaran]

Originally Posted by MachZer0

How about if global warming alarmists like Obama share a plane ride with their spouses when they're going to the same destination on the same day. When the alarmists start acting like global warming is real, people will take notice
​

"{Insert boogie person here} is a hypocrite" doesn't make the science go away.

But the hypocricy of that "science's" proponent certainly does say a lot about whether he believes in it, or even really cares about doing anything in relation to it. Maybe he actually doesn't believe it at all, and that's why he does the things he does. Maybe we should look at Obama's actions instead of his words--you know, the way some people say we should look at God's "fingerprints" rather than His words.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNkVmdicvA

???

 

[JustOneWay]

???

He never says he can halt the rise of the oceans.

 

[DaisyDay]

He never says he can halt the rise of the oceans.

Yeah but the title of the clip says he did, so...if you don't care for actual facts or reality, it's pretty convincing.

 

[JustOneWay]

Yeah but the title of the clip says he did, so...if you don't care for actual facts or reality, it's pretty convincing.

Sometimes I wonder if they listen to the videos they post.

I suppose they post that stuff hoping somebody reads the title and takes it as the truth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Originally Posted by MachZer0

How about if global warming alarmists like Obama share a plane ride with their spouses when they're going to the same destination on the same day. When the alarmists start acting like global warming is real, people will take notice
​

But the hypocricy of that "science's" proponent certainly does say a lot about whether he believes in it, or even really cares about doing anything in relation to it. Maybe he actually doesn't believe it at all, and that's why he does the things he does. Maybe we should look at Obama's actions instead of his words--you know, the way some people say we should look at God's "fingerprints" rather than His words.

Apparently your debating tactic is to insert anti-Obama rhetoric, thereby invoking a knee-jerk revulsion reaction, and in that way emerge victorious without having to make winning arguments. This popular tactic does not work for those who aren't prejudiced against Obama, but it does work with some people, and so it continues.

 

[Aldebaran]

Apparently your debating tactic is to insert anti-Obama rhetoric, thereby invoking a knee-jerk revulsion reaction, and in that way emerge victorious without having to make winning arguments. This popular tactic does not work for those who aren't prejudiced against Obama, but it does work with some people, and so it continues.

I see you're only interested in deflecting. How about answering what I actually wrote about? I was pointing out that the credibility of a claim can be found in the actions of its biggest proponents. If those proponents say we all need to cut back on carbon emissions, and then they go out and pollute more than most people do, does that tell you they believe their own claims? It certainly doesn't give credibility to the claim itself!

And yes, I was referring to what Obama has been doing. You know, Obama--the one who says we need to cut back on carbon emissions. Sorry if you don't like people referencing him.

 

[GQ Chris]

I see you're only interested in deflecting. How about answering what I actually wrote about. I was pointing out that the credibility of a claim can be found in the actions of its biggest proponents. If those proponents say we all need to cut back on carbon emissions, and then they go out and pollute more than most people do, does that tell you they believe their own claims?

And yes, I was referring to what Obama has been doing. You know, Obama--the one who says we need to cut back on carbon emissions. Sorry if you don't like people referencing him.

ZING!!! excellent points

 

[amanuensis63]

ZING!!! excellent points

If those are "excellent points" then I suppose Christianity has to fold up the tents since it must also be fake.

Ted Haggard
Jimmy Swaggart
Jim Bakker

Just find people who preach one thing and do another and you can ignore all the rest of the facts on the ground.

But, bravo, to the folks on Christian Forums who have decidedly proven Christianity is false!

Kind of sad, but hey, in order to consistent I guess these are the rules.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I see you're only interested in deflecting. How about answering what I actually wrote about? I was pointing out that the credibility of a claim can be found in the actions of its biggest proponents. If those proponents say we all need to cut back on carbon emissions, and then they go out and pollute more than most people do, does that tell you they believe their own claims? It certainly doesn't give credibility to the claim itself!

And yes, I was referring to what Obama has been doing. You know, Obama--the one who says we need to cut back on carbon emissions. Sorry if you don't like people referencing him.

Last time I checked, Obama didn't claim to be a scientist. What about the science do you find questionable?

 

[GQ Chris]

If those are "excellent points" then I suppose Christianity has to fold up the tents since it must also be fake.

Ted Haggard
Jimmy Swaggart
Jim Bakker

Just find people who preach one thing and do another and you can ignore all the rest of the facts on the ground.

But, bravo, to the folks on Christian Forums who have decidedly proven Christianity is false!

Kind of sad, but hey, in order to consistent I guess these are the rules.

Nah those are just your corrupt Pentecostal/Charismatic Pastors that's all.

 

[Aldebaran]

If those are "excellent points" then I suppose Christianity has to fold up the tents since it must also be fake.

Ted Haggard
Jimmy Swaggart
Jim Bakker

Just find people who preach one thing and do another and you can ignore all the rest of the facts on the ground.

But, bravo, to the folks on Christian Forums who have decidedly proven Christianity is false!

Kind of sad, but hey, in order to consistent I guess these are the rules.

Where do you get that?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I see you're only interested in deflecting. How about answering what I actually wrote about? I was pointing out that the credibility of a claim can be found in the actions of its biggest proponents. If those proponents say we all need to cut back on carbon emissions, and then they go out and pollute more than most people do, does that tell you they believe their own claims? It certainly doesn't give credibility to the claim itself!

And yes, I was referring to what Obama has been doing. You know, Obama--the one who says we need to cut back on carbon emissions. Sorry if you don't like people referencing him.

Let's see how that works when we apply your logic to yourself.:

1. If you believe in Christianity, then you believe you shouldn't sin.
2. You have sinned.
3. Therefore you do not believe in Christianity.

Implying the sea levels aren't rising, or that global warming isn't taking place because Obama has wasted fuel is a stupid argument.

 

[interpreter]

I do not understand why people deny climate change. We have known for a century that increased levels of carbon dioxide cause planets to warm. We have shown conclusively that burning fossil fuels has raised the carbon dioxide levels of our atmosphere (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm). Based on that we would predict that temperatures would rise, and sure enough, they have. Attempts to attribute this temperature rise to natural causes have repeatedly found those causes inadequate, while the effects expected from increases in carbon dioxide closely match what we observe.

Deniers will make a big deal that the temperature has been largely on a plateau for the last decade, while ignoring the fact that this plateau is very high--9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. Yes, the global temperature has changed little this decade--while still making 2014 the hottest year on record--but the total heat content of the earth has continued to rise rapidly. Where is that heat going? Much of it is melting the polar ice caps. A recent study in Antarctica indicates the ice is melting at an alarming rate, which could cause much of the ice cover to destabilize and slowly flow into the sea. See, for instance, https://news.vice.com/article/the-w...at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought. This could lead to disastrous sea level rises.

Climate change, global warming, and rising sea levels could have a devastating effect in the lives of our grandchildren. I don't write this for me. I don't expect to be here for the worst of the effects. But for the sake of those we love, shouldn't we all be concerned?

The world's major science organizations have issued strong warnings about the dangers of climate change. So why ignore the science, and persist in denial of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels?

We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues. Global warming is last plague# 4. All of the last plagues are man-made.