US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Good points about ice mass and geologic considerations. These seem to get little to no attention in the climate discussion. Limits of resolution of measurements are often forgotten. Then "average global temperature" is a tough one to discern. Temperature measurements are highly subjective. Exactly what places to measure, and how frequently is subjective, so error prone. Even the average temperature of a small local area is difficult. Do you measure the ground surface, subsurface, atmosphere at various altitudes? If so how is a huge array of temperature sensors possible or practical?



Even if it were possible for human intervention to change climate trends, the results could take centuries due to "thermal inertia". The sea takes a very long time to change its temperature, just as a tea kettle will not boil instantly, nor will it cool back to room temperature in a blink.

Everything you slam here is solely a reflection of how uninformed you are. None of it has anything to do with the validity of the science of ACC. Just the usual denialism tropes.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Everything you slam here is solely a reflection of how uninformed you are. None of it has anything to do with the validity of the science of ACC. Just the usual denialism tropes.

The anthropomorphic climate change dupes are so predictable, you have proven just as I said, that I would get the trite "denier" response. The climate dupes do their name calling, and site no valid source for their prejudice that they base upon sensational false media. Did you bother to read even a summary of Prof. Carl Wunsch's work , or Dr. Ian Clark? Did you bother to read about the Dr. Michael Mann vs. Dr. Timothy Ball court case? Probably not because CBC, CTV, Global News, CNN, etc. did not cover the case. It does not fit the agenda that they have so strongly committed to.


Did you bother to read about climategate that revealed fraud at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit? Anyone who ignores these major events in the climate discussion is uninformed. Climate science can be be biased. When the cultural zeitgeist is about a particular view, researchers will rush for grant money deals that reflect that view. The proliferation of studies that conclude in favor of the anthropomorphic climate change mass misconception is evidence of the fraud. Disregard by the media of studies that refute the fraud are further evidence. The modern inquisition of honest academics is further evidence.



I've learned that whenever the subject of climate arises on this form, and I express the truth, my email loads up with lots of notifications of angry responses by the climate cultists. Then someone goes crying to the moderators because they claim that I hurt their feelings, I ran off topic, or made a political statement, or done some other forbidden deed. The anti science crowd does not want to win the discussion. The can't. So they try to shut it down. Of course the moderators will take their side, as they are of the same bias. Such people are so ignorant of science that they also think that a mask with pores many time bigger than a virus will save them, and that two or three jabs of a concoction will save them, even after Canada's triple jabbed PM, and triple jabbed Her Majesty caught the bug. (To the moderators: These people were mentioned only for their fame, not for their politics.)

[FoxIslander]

Originally Posted by geoleo

They come from "true believers" of the most successful new religions since Communism and Scientology. Its very widespread ,especially among leftist collectivist groups and if you think its bad in the USA -its 5 times worse in Europe. However China and India ,the worlds worst polluters pay zero effective attention to it. Nor to the ultra rich liberals who mouth it but continue polluting massively,like John Kerry, Bidens Climate CZAR and Nancy Pelousi.

Why is political BS tolerated here? I come here for sailing/ cruising...not this crap.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

(Rubbish deleted)...you have proven just as I said, that I would get the trite "denier" response...(Lots of rubbish deleted)

Yes, indeed. It is what it is and you earned it fair and square. Congratulations - your voluminous post had one thing in it that was true!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by FoxIslander

Why is political BS tolerated here? I come here for sailing/ cruising...not this crap.

You're not the first to ask...

[Bycrick]

Even though this is a cruising and sailing forum, the climate change zealots never miss a chance to start threads that "prove their point." I assume that they work on the theory that if they keep beating the drum, it will convince everyone. If you get tired of their ranting, just don’t read it.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by geoleo
They come from "true believers" of the most successful new religions since Communism and Scientology. Its very widespread ,especially among leftist collectivist groups and if you think its bad in the USA -its 5 times worse in Europe. However China and India ,the worlds worst polluters pay zero effective attention to it. Nor to the ultra rich liberals who mouth it but continue polluting massively,like John Kerry, Bidens Climate CZAR and Nancy Pelousi.

Originally Posted by FoxIslander

Why is political BS tolerated here? I come here for sailing/ cruising...not this crap.

It seems that this thread was begun with comments on sea level rise by 5 inches. And of course this is based upon political science, not on true operational science. It is only vaguely related sailing principles. One would sail the by same means in navigable waters regardless of a depth difference of 5 inches. This would barely show on a depth sounder, and certainly not show on charts. It is indistinguishable compared to wave heave. So it should not be surprising if a statement that was originally based upon political propaganda cannot be discussed without some reference to the politics of the matter.


At least geoloe gave an honest assessment of the situation that can be confirmed by simple observation and simple research. Just because you do not agree with a statement does not make it incorrect. It only means that you are wrong.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Even though this is a cruising and sailing forum, the climate change zealots never miss a chance to start threads that "prove their point." I assume that they work on the theory that if they keep beating the drum, it will convince everyone. If you get tired of their ranting, just don’t read it.

Climate change cultist think that science is a democratic process. If they can get enough people to agree that something that is scientifically wrong is right, that their view will become right. Why do they not try convincing people that gravity does not exist? Will they be dumb enough for the whole crowd of them to jump off a cliff? But they are abusing science to justify some form of social rule that is certainly not democratic.



I've had to give up responding to some threads due to the overwhelming number of climate cultist troll responses. I just have better things to do than to chat with a jar of Heinz pickles. Eventually the jar of pickles will be opened and devoured. But these kind of pickles have a bad taste, and will need to be tossed out for the crows.


I'm expecting some warning from a climate cult moderator at any time.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

(Nonsense deleted) One would sail the by same means in navigable waters regardless of a depth difference of 5 inches. This would barely show on a depth sounder, and certainly not show on charts. It is indistinguishable compared to wave heave. (Nonsense deleted)

ROTFL. You remind of King Arthur at the bridge in the Holy Grail: 'Tis but a flesh wound!'
Please, keep at it - you are doing the hard work for me in undermining your own position.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Montanan

To visualize the effects of various rises in sea level just go to this mapping tool and select the amount of rise on the scale to the left of the map, then zoom into the part of the coastline that you have interest in.

Rather foreboding if one lives near the coast. And when it is lapping at one's door and has obliterated a beach, a wet land and caused infiltration of salt water far inland in the aquifers, everyone will see the impact.

Go ahead kid yourself.

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/s...h/midAccretion

Thanks for the link. I don't need to worry for another five feet.

[Bycrick]

As somebody mentioned above, "political science" has nothing to do with science. Politics is a matter of convincing enough people to believe something. Whether it’s "true" or not in any objective way is completely immaterial. If enough people "believe," then they will elect like-thinking politicians, who will cater to their electorate. Truth and science have nothing to do with the process.

[CaptJimFrei]

Originally Posted by sailingunity

I'd be more concerned about subsidence than sea level rise.

You mean like in the Norfolk VA area?

The US Navy is taking this **** very seriously.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

ROTFL. You remind of King Arthur at the bridge in the Holy Grail: 'Tis but a flesh wound!'
Please, keep at it - you are doing the hard work for me in undermining your own position.

If you are concerned about a five inch depth difference, you got yourself into dangerously shallow water. Better carefully pick a course to some deep water. The climate cultists are likewise shallow people. They delete truth and call it rubbish. They cannot win the discussion, so they try to delete the facts, pretending that they do not exist. They seldom site valid science. They discredit honest scientists as contrarians and "conspiracy theorists".



But the conspiracy theory of climate change has been proven as conspiracy fact. Perhaps the most profound revelation is the climategate scandal. But media and government pretend that this never happened. When the news media ignores something, it effectively does not exist in the minds of those who follow them. In the words of an infamous US president of the 1970's, "The American people don’t believe anything’s real until they see it on TV."


If one follows its history, climate change is largely a big media event that was first promulgated by Marget Thatcher as ammo against striking coal miners. It was then called global warming. Thatcher wanted to build up the nuclear industry to displace coal miners. She had enough science knowledge to make it seem plausible. Years later she recanted her position. When the original promoters of an idea recant, it at least makes that idea suspicious.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by CaptJimFrei

You mean like in the Norfolk VA area?

The US Navy is taking this **** very seriously.

As are property casualty insurance companies. Climate change is rewriting the rules. Because of the increased and increasing threats (magnitude and frequency) of storms and floods, the actual risk calculation is leading to increases. That is magnified by the Federal Government threatening to withdraw subsidies*. Homeowners are getting soaked - literally and figuratively. This will hit boaters as well - more and more severe storms will inevitably hit our insurance rates, though not as much as land-based homes. Floating is a great attribute to withstand some weather phenomena.

Please don't start in with the 'that doesn't mean it is anthropogenic' trope. This is simply to rebut the foolishness of "5 inches is nothing" line of thinking.

We are in for a rough ride, and the longer the denialists drag this out, the rougher it will be.


*Incredible that they would have ever done this at all. Talk about welfare for the wealthy...

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Everything you slam here is solely a reflection of how uninformed you are. None of it has anything to do with the validity of the science of ACC. Just the usual denialism tropes.

Actually, your “science” is based solely on a set of assumptions that are neither proven or well-established. Consequently, any conclusions aren’t valid but merely conjecture.

Objective people don’t base decisions, action and certainly not the expenditure of vast sums of money based on conjecture.

Come back when you can

1. quantify the effect of anthropogenic climate change and
2. Define precisely what we can effectively do to mitigate it.

And once you do those two things, provide a guarantee the climate won’t change regardless.

Otherwise, you have no argument.