patrick.net

Next excuse for lack of sea level rise:

The oceans are not rising because thirsty fish and other aquatic life are drinking the water as they swim in it. Anyone with a home aquarium knows the water level goes down over time as the fish gulp the fluid.

Malcolm says

Beautifully stated, so will the alarmists please concede that your point of view might change in the future because you don't have all of the answers. Please stop pretending that you can predict climate or understand all of the variables of natural and man-induced variables.

Bingo.

But if they accept that fact, then the grant money will start disappearing...

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

This is the typical progression of science as new studies help expand our understanding.

The science is far from settled.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

There's no reason for the denialists to blow their snark load over this.

Malcolm says

I only hear crickets and insults.

If all of the ice melted we would get more land mass or Terra firma, not less. The sea levels would not rise nor sink.
The weight of the excess water would force water on the bottom of the ocean deeper into the earth, actually pushing crust up and expanding the earth's girth of the earth Terra firma with more water under it. We would also gain new spectacular Waterfalls, rapids, rivers, perhaps dried up lake beds all throughout the southwest would bubble up with water for the first time in 10's of thousands of years. Or when the great Glaciers melted from the last iceage.

Here's a little diddy I call water under pressure moving landmass around. It's in the key of Sea.

https://weather.com/news/news/2018-01-24-alaska-earthquake-florida-wells-shaking

All the deniers make the same logical error---presuming that one needs 100% proof. Life is lived uncertainty. All decisions are made by amassing as much data and determining the best course of action. Whether it's limiting risk or maximizing potential outcome, there is never complete data.

But that doesn't stop one from making a decision and taking action. Any argument that says we should do nothing until we are 100% certain that global warming will destroy the planet is not thinking clearly.

anon_4dce6 says

anon_1fe2e says

Place a board next to the lip of the glass. Place ice on the board. Let the ice melt. Let the melted ice run into the glass. What happens to the water in the glass? The board is land.

If you want to go that route, how many rivers and water flow into the ocean everyday from land?

How much treated sewage water runs into those rivers and into the ocean, where the original source of the water comes from wells underground?

How much rainwater that falls on land runs into the ocean every day?

How much ice and snow melt from the mountains runs into the ocean everyday?

Yet, somehow the alarmists want to tell us that melting ice at the North and South pole is going to put the country underwater, net none of what I just listed makes any change to the ocean levels.

Seriously? 90% of the earth's ice is locked in the Antarctica. That melts...
Your point is meaningless as the majority of the water you mentioned is already part of the system.

Malcolm says

anon_1fe2e says

Place a board next to the lip of the glass. Place ice on the board. Let the ice melt. Let the melted ice run into the glass. What happens to the water in the glass? The board is land.

I believe I clearly said floating ice in my comment. There are people who literally think floating ice sheets melting will raise sea levels, they don't. What you describe is part of the normal water cycle. If you can't demonstrate actual sea level rise, then please stop asserting it. It simply hasn't happened.

Did the person I was responding to say that? No.

anon_f934e says

What about all the water that evaporates off of land from lakes, ponds, rivers, pools, irrigation of agriculture and lawns, powerwashing, car washes, snow, etc. and then falls as rain on the ocean? How come that doesn't cause the oceans to rise?

Inquiring minds want to know?

I very much hope that was sarcasm.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It won't happen overnight, it took many centuries, but Catastrophists act like one day people will wake up to find Miami or Manhattan under water.

No they don't. The timescales you refer to in the past and what is happening now are rather different. Hundreds of years is a very short period of time. Even if the sea level rises only by a few feet in that period, it will be a disaster, so I'm not sure what your point is.

HeadSet says

Next excuse for lack of sea level rise:

The oceans are not rising because thirsty fish and other aquatic life are drinking the water as they swim in it. Anyone with a home aquarium knows the water level goes down over time as the fish gulp the fluid.

If sea ice melts first and 90% of ice is on land in the Antarctic, then what direction do you think things are going?

anon_8f378 says

Any argument that says we should do nothing until we are 100% certain that global warming will destroy the planet is not thinking clearly.

What percent is your certainty? What is the solution to ACGW?
I say that we adapt to whatever challenge nature throws at us. It has worked over millenniums.

The sea level is maxed out at 38,000 feet about 8,000 feet higher than commercial jets fly. let that sink in just how much water is in the ocean and how much pressure all of that water is placing on ocean sea floor.


Here's a little math to help you comprehend it.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fluidmechanics1-130517071300-phpapp02/95/fluid-mechanics-1-26-638.jpg?cb=1368774836

Malcolm says

Beautifully stated, so will the alarmists please concede that your point of view might change in the future because you don't have all of the answers. Please stop pretending that you can predict climate or understand all of the variables of natural and man-induced variables.

The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against you. You can keep repeating the same points over and over again, but the science still remains against you.

Onvacation says

anon_8f378 says

Any argument that says we should do nothing until we are 100% certain that global warming will destroy the planet is not thinking clearly.

What percent is your certainty? What is the solution to ACGW?
I say that we adapt to whatever challenge nature throws at us. It has worked over millenniums.

It has worked with a very small population with fairly minor climate changes over longer periods than we are talking about now. If you are wrong as the vast majority of scientists say you are, then the likely changes that you are dismissing will not be dealt with by simple adaptation. They will cause enormous upheaval - mass migration, huge food shortages, wars, the loss of many coastal cities, etc., etc. This needs to be tackled to the best of our abilities to mitigate the damage.
You like asking the same question and then pretending you haven't got an answer. How about you answer me these two questions? If I'm wrong about climate change, what will the consequences be? If you're wrong...

anon_1fe2e says

90% of the earth's ice is locked in the Antarctica.

That's true, because all the ice in the Arctic has melted, according to Al Gore.


Oh wait, maybe not.

So, currently there is no ice in the Arctic, only in the Antarctic?

anon_1fe2e says

anon_f934e says

What about all the water that evaporates off of land from lakes, ponds, rivers, pools, irrigation of agriculture and lawns, powerwashing, car washes, snow, etc. and then falls as rain on the ocean? How come that doesn't cause the oceans to rise?

Inquiring minds want to know?

I very much hope that was sarcasm.

Maybe not:

Why Does California Let Billions Of Gallons Of Fresh Water Flow Straight Into The Ocean?

.." Even on the driest year in recorded history in 2013, it still rained 3.6 inches in Los Angeles. An inch of rainfall in L.A. generates 3.8 billion gallons of runoff, so you’re talking about more than 12 billion gallons of water that could be captured, but that flows within hours down our concrete streets and into the ocean.
https://blog.treepeople.org/treepeople-news/2015/04/forbes-california-billions-gallons-fresh-water-flow-straight-ocean
That's only from CA, what about all the other states, countries around the world?? It's only a "few" BILLION gallons, right?

Oh yeah, only melting ice from the polar caps adds to the level of the ocean, silly me!!

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

This is the typical progression of science as new studies help expand our understanding.

Stop the bus!!!

The Alarmists have been yelling for decades that the science is settled!

Are you telling us NOW that the science ISN'T settled, but ever changing, (like climate CHANGE (since they had to throw out the term Global Warming))?

I need a strong drink!

Paging Al Gore............................. please come to the science desk....... STAT.....

anon_1fe2e says

They will cause enormous upheaval - mass migration, huge food shortages, wars, the loss of many coastal cities, etc., etc.

anon_1fe2e says

The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against you. You can keep repeating the same points over and over again, but the science still remains against you.

By overwhelming evidence do you mean 1 degree and 10 inches of searise over the last century?
And why can't you Malcolm says

concede that your point of view might change in the future because you don't have all of the answers?

anon_4fb0c says

Maybe not:

Why Does California Let Billions Of Gallons Of Fresh Water Flow Straight Into The Ocean?

.." Even on the driest year in recorded history in 2013, it still rained 3.6 inches in Los Angeles. An inch of rainfall in L.A. generates 3.8 billion gallons of runoff, so you’re talking about more than 12 billion gallons of water that could be captured, but that flows within hours down our concrete streets and into the ocean.
https://blog.treepeople.org/treepeople-news/2015/04/forbes-california-billions-gallons-fresh-water-flow-straight-ocean
That's only from CA, what about all the other states, countries around the world?? It's only a "few" BILLION gallons, right?

Oh yeah, only melting ice from the polar caps adds to the level of the ocean, silly me!!

And this is the guy who thinks he's smarter than the best climate scientists.

Your buddy says that a train could come by your town at 10pm. At 11pm, the train is not yet there. It is getting close, but it is not there yet. Do you (A) Say that your buddy was a bit wrong about the time he said it MIGHT come, but was correct about the train coming through town or (B) Go go lie across the train tracks while smugly asserting that your buddy was wrong and is therefore a discredited liar.

I'm not even a huge climate change debater on either side but OnVacation is making some convincing points.

The science being 'settled' doesn't mean that scientists know everything and can predict temperature and sea levels from year to year over the next 100 yrs. It means that scientists know the general trend, they know why, and they are figuring out more and more about how to more accurately quantify the global and local temperatures and weather patterns. For the record, the generally accepted predictions from the 20th century have been proven to be about correct over the 50-100 yr range.
The denialists really have to stop arguing against straw men. It's blatantly obvious what you are doing.

Goran_K says

Malcolm says

Beautifully stated, so will the alarmists please concede that your point of view might change in the future because you don't have all of the answers. Please stop pretending that you can predict climate or understand all of the variables of natural and man-induced variables.

Bingo.

But if they accept that fact, then the grant money will start disappearing...

If scientists knew everything, how could they justify grant money? That would be a ridiculous proposition. The justification for research is that a lot is known, the known risks are high, and there are unknowns. People compete for money to find answers and reduce the unknowns. So-called global warming alarmists have a great track record.

The denialists are the black nightwww.youtube.com/embed/dhRUe-gz690

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The science being 'settled' doesn't mean that scientists know everything and can predict temperature and sea levels from year to year over the next 100 yrs.

Talk about a straw man and back peddaling..

The IPCC declared the science was settled decades ago, only to find out they were wrong on their predictions, graphs and alarms. These predictions were for GW alarms a decade away, not 100 years away.

Why can't the alarmists just own their failed predictions without all this back pedaling and Monday morning quarterbacking?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

If scientists knew everything, how could they justify grant money?

Uh, leftist/democrats have been claiming this is "settled science" for over a decade...

anon_8f378 says

And this is the guy who thinks he's smarter than the best climate scientists.

Who knows more about climate than I do?

Please put forth your champion.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Your buddy says that a train could come by your town at 10pm. At 11pm, the train is not yet there. It is getting close, but it is not there yet. Do you (A) Say that your buddy was a bit wrong about the time he said it MIGHT come, but was correct about the train coming through town or (B) Go go lie across the train tracks while smugly asserting that your buddy was wrong and is therefore a discredited liar.

Wouldn't I see, hear, and or feel the train coming?

Science used to try to understand nature. Now some scientists are trying to predict and control nature.

We can't even predict and control the weather.

anon_8f378 says

All the deniers make the same logical error---presuming that one needs 100% proof. Life is lived uncertainty. All decisions are made by amassing as much data and determining the best course of action. Whether it's limiting risk or maximizing potential outcome, there is never complete data.

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

Onvacation says

Wouldn't I see, hear, and or feel the train coming?

You're going with option B, then. At least you are consistent.

Onvacation says

We can't even predict and control the weather.

Actually we do a pretty darn good job of predicting the weather.

Malcolm says

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

Or even just say that a 100ppm increase in CO2 will result in X degree C/F Global Average Temperature Increase

Malcolm says

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

That's not true. What happened is that statements of what MIGHT happen were turned into "bold predictions" and memes by dishonest members of the AGWC. And than parroted on sites like this as if they were true.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Or even just say that a 100ppm increase in CO2 will result in X degree C/F Global Average Temperature Increase

That wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the AGWC.

anon_1fe2e says

It has worked with a very small population with fairly minor climate changes over longer periods than we are talking about now. If you are wrong as the vast majority of scientists say you are, then the likely changes that you are dismissing will not be dealt with by simple adaptation. They will cause enormous upheaval - mass migration, huge food shortages, wars, the loss of many coastal cities, etc., etc. This needs to be tackled to the best of our abilities to mitigate the damage.
You like asking the same question and then pretending you haven't got an answer. How about you answer me these two questions? If I'm wrong about climate change, what will the consequences be? If you're wrong...

Most scientists in this so called vast majority that have opinions on this matter have never taken a single climatology, environmental, or geology class in their life. I have a bachelors in Chemistry, PhD in Physical Chemistry and a minor in Geological Sciences. None of that even qualified for me to develop an educated opinion on climate change.

The enormous upheaval scenario is ludicrous and anyone that believes otherwise is incapable of understanding time scales. Mass migration? Doubtful. The time scale that these changes are predicted to occur on is over the course of centuries. Yet, the left wants to characterize a bunch of people packing up their belongings and fleeing a flood. The time scale that these changes occur on are a full order of magnitude larger than it takes to build a major city.

The idea of food shortages is completely laughable. Florida's growing season lasts longer than New Englands. Why is that? I'd like you to cite one year since the 1940s that the food supply has drastically decreased. It hasn't and it won't. With the onset of automation, the amount of agricultural production is poised to go up even more.

If you're wrong, we waste trillions of dollars for a problem that didn't exist. People who think we are doomed are the real science deniers who can't fathom how we can easily adapt.

theoakman says

we waste trillions of dollars for a problem that didn't exist.

I think that's Al Gore's plan, he needs the money, it's expensive for him to heat and cool that 12,000 sq ft mansion of his.

theoakman says

People who think we are doomed are the real science deniers who can't fathom how we can easily adapt.

Oh, now you went and did it. The Alarmists can NEVER answer the question on how people can adapt and live year round on the Arctic Circle and how people can adapt and live year round on the Equator.

But, but, but, a 1.7 degree F rise over 130 years is CATASTROPHIC.... We're all going to be "wet bulbed" to death!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anon_3b28c says

That's not true. What happened is that statements of what MIGHT happen were turned into "bold predictions" and memes by dishonest members of the AGWC. And than parroted on sites like this as if they were true.

Wrong again, I have heard this stuff over and over for my whole life. It is never what might happen, it is always non-debatable scientific fact that these things will happen. if the actual results were the same as what was predicted over recent decades, it would be a moot point. No one would care about indiscernible changes to global temperatures and sea levels. Since you don't believe me, here are some of the best of climate change alarmists over time.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

Malcolm says

Wrong again, I have heard this stuff over and over for my whole life. It is never what might happen, it is always non-debatable scientific fact that these things will happen. if the actual results were the same as what was predicted over recent decades, it would be a moot point. No one would care about indiscernible changes to global temperatures and sea levels. Since you don't believe me, here are some of the best of climate change alarmists over time.

I concur completely, I've literally heard this since the 2nd Grade, something like 35 years ago.

This is a good one as well. These are permanent records. You alarmists will never be able to back-pedal and say such idotic lies as, "they were saying what MIGHT happen, not "bold predictions."

Hey, when there are numerous times in these historic compilations where they actually say, "scientists predict.....," that tends to mean they are making a prediction. As alarming as they were, even back then, I think most reasonable minds would consider them bold.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lDNkAkl89wA