US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Adelie]

This seems to have become an argument about global warming instead of a discussion of the effects if sea level rises in the next 30y.

Perhaps it should go back to the former topic.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

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

You guys are killing me - I am going to hemorrhage from laughter. Does the word 'irony' ring any bells?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

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.

Obviously you have not been following the thread from the start, or you would made have made those two demands. It is not possible to "quantify" something that does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot be mitigated. I ask you to please see my previous postings, and check sources. I never said that climate will not vary. I only inferred that climate variation is not caused by human activity to any significant extent. The only significant cause of climate variation is natural solar variation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Obviously you have not been following the thread from the start, or you would made have made those two demands. It is not possible to "quantify" something that does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot be mitigated. I ask you to please see my previous postings, and check sources. I never said that climate will not vary. I only inferred that climate variation is not caused by human activity to any significant extent. The only significant cause of climate variation is natural solar variation.

Solar activity varies about 0.1% which is insufficient to affect climate change. Solar activity has been declining as temperatures increase.

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by Adelie

This seems to have become an argument about global warming instead of a discussion of the effects if sea level rises in the next 30y.

Perhaps it should go back to the former topic.

Hey folks, that's a warning shot across the bow.

Same thing happened in other threads before they were shut down & closed.

I've got 10 troll-ish members on ignore. Their rants and provocations have zero effect on me.

Do not feed the trolls, ignore them. If nobody reacts to their comments, they will bore easily, go somewhere else, and the discussion (both for and against) can continue in a somewhat respectful manner.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Adelie

This seems to have become an argument about global warming instead of a discussion of the effects if sea level rises in the next 30y.

Perhaps it should go back to the former topic.

Dear Adelie
A good thought, but I wonder if it is practical? Can you talk about the effect and ignore the cause? You can't talk about rising water in the bilge without talking about and debating the source. Would it be practical to hope for or to monitor that?
I would vote for just closing the whole thing down. It is, in the end, utterly pointless - no one's mind is being changed. People can't help themselves from saying ridiculous things and if they are left unchallenged, the nonsense prevails.
Thanks for your moderation efforts - CF is great.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Adelie

This seems to have become an argument about global warming instead of a discussion of the effects if sea level rises in the next 30y.

Perhaps it should go back to the former topic.

Please do, people here HIGHJACK threads all the time.

The intended comments then morph into A POLITICAL Arguement.
not Valuable information.

Those that don't want to address reality will always argue the other, rather than let the thread comments alone.
Just my experience here on CF.

A lot of ALPHA personalities here.
And that's MY Opinion.
382 posts of mainly rubbish.
Boatyarddog

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Please do, people here HIGHJACK threads all the time.

The intended comments then morph into A POLITICAL Arguement.
not Valuable information.

Those that don't want to address reality will always argue the other, rather than let the thread comments alone.
Just my experience here on CF.

A lot of ALPHA personalities here.
And that's MY Opinion.
382 posts of mainly rubbish.
Boatyarddog

Yea Boatyard Dog, the form soon fills up with the overenthusiastic solar variation deniers who think that they are right. My email fills up with notifications of their rude comments that only display their bias and unscientific views. They are so victimized by big media misinformation that they just cannot recognize reality. Many have even been walking around outdoors with masks on in dread that under perfect ventilation out doors, they will catch a respiratory infection. Such cannot be reasoned with. I suspect that in addition to the mask, they have deeply driven ear plugs so that they will not hear the truth. Next they will be wearing masks that cover their eyes, since they are already blinded by the big media TV screen. If these people are right about climate, we cannot comprehend how Europe cycled into and out of the medieval warming period and the little ice age long before modern industry began using coal and oil. There was an age of vineyards in northern England and there was an age of skating and outdoor markets on the Thames River. But petroleum was unheard of, and coal use was either non existent or of limited consumption.



Coal and petroleum fuels have actually helped to save the earth by decreasing demand for fire wood and slowing down deforestation. If they had been introduced sooner, they would have saved the whales by eliminating demand for whale oil sooner. These fuels have made modern civilization possible, and given these people comforts and conveniences that they would not part with now. The reliability, storeability, and energy density of petroleum and coal are impossible to match with existing technologies. Until these properties can be replicated with other technologies, retrofitting the world is not possible. And there is really no need to rush with inadequate costly technologies.



I'll soon have to end my comments, since the comments by the deniers are just too numerous. But they will think that they are winning by their shear number. They think that science can be established by number of believers in some ideal rather than acknowledging facts. They also think that cutting, often rude remarks somehow substitute for facts. Propaganda has caused huge numbers of people to act against their own interests. The inflation we are seeing is largely resultant from carbon tax and overhead costs of energy needless conversion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Yea Boatyard Dog, the form soon fills up with the overenthusiastic solar variation deniers who think that they are right. My email fills up with notifications of their rude comments that only display their bias and unscientific views. They are so victimized by big media misinformation that they just cannot recognize reality. Many have even been walking around outdoors with masks on in dread that under perfect ventilation out doors, they will catch a respiratory infection. Such cannot be reasoned with. I suspect that in addition to the mask, they have deeply driven ear plugs so that they will not hear the truth. Next they will be wearing masks that cover their eyes, since they are already blinded by the big media TV screen. If these people are right about climate, we cannot comprehend how Europe cycled into and out of the medieval warming period and the little ice age long before modern industry began using coal and oil. There was an age of vineyards in northern England and there was an age of skating and outdoor markets on the Thames River. But petroleum was unheard of, and coal use was either non existent or of limited consumption.



Coal and petroleum fuels have actually helped to save the earth by decreasing demand for fire wood and slowing down deforestation. If they had been introduced sooner, they would have saved the whales by eliminating demand for whale oil sooner. These fuels have made modern civilization possible, and given these people comforts and conveniences that they would not part with now. The reliability, storeability, and energy density of petroleum and coal are impossible to match with existing technologies. Until these properties can be replicated with other technologies, retrofitting the world is not possible. And there is really no need to rush with inadequate costly technologies.



I'll soon have to end my comments, since the comments by the deniers are just too numerous. But they will think that they are winning by their shear number. They think that science can be established by number of believers in some ideal rather than acknowledging facts. They also think that cutting, often rude remarks somehow substitute for facts. Propaganda has caused huge numbers of people to act against their own interests. The inflation we are seeing is largely resultant from carbon tax and overhead costs of energy needless conversion.

There is too much to easily debunk here so I will not bother.

Let us get back to sea level rise.

[westsailwill]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Dear Adelie
A good thought, but I wonder if it is practical? Can you talk about the effect and ignore the cause? You can't talk about rising water in the bilge without talking about and debating the source. Would it be practical to hope for or to monitor that?
I would vote for just closing the whole thing down. It is, in the end, utterly pointless - no one's mind is being changed. People can't help themselves from saying ridiculous things and if they are left unchallenged, the nonsense prevails.
Thanks for your moderation efforts - CF is great.

👍👍👍👍👍

[Montanan]

Geez, just saying, and should not need to have to say:

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Yea Boatyard Dog, the form soon fills up with the overenthusiastic solar variation deniers who think that they are right. My email fills up with notifications of their rude comments that only display their bias and unscientific views.

anyone with "diesel" in their username is likely biased on such topics.

Coal and petroleum fuels have actually helped to save the earth by decreasing demand for fire wood and slowing down deforestation. If they had been introduced sooner, they would have saved the whales by eliminating demand for whale oil sooner. These fuels

you said "save the earth". Let us be clear on one thing. This has nothing to do with saving the earth and never did: it is about saving ourselves.

have made modern civilization possible, and given these people comforts and conveniences that they would not part with now.

Same argument was used to justify slavery

The reliability, storeability, and energy density of petroleum and coal are impossible to match with existing technologies.

It is impossible to match the energy density of a small nuclear reactor such as what powers the martian rovers and other spacecraft that could easily power a small boat.

I'll soon have to end my comments, since the comments by the deniers are just too numerous. But they will think that they are winning by their shear number. They think that science can be established by number of believers in some ideal rather than acknowledging facts. They also think that cutting, often rude remarks somehow substitute for facts.

Let me know if I make comments that are not facts.

Propaganda has caused huge numbers of people to act against their own interests. The inflation we are seeing is largely resultant from carbon tax and overhead costs of energy needless conversion.

Lets hear more about the "carbon tax". How much is it where you live? Where I am in the United States there is no carbon tax. Consider it costs $1200 per ton to capture co2 from the air and store it permanently with current technology is this a reasonable tax? What about the fact that oil could be used for tens of thousands of years to produce synthetic materials like sails and rope but instead it is wasted on combustion engines that for the most part we could do without? It seems to me that the carbon tax for fuels should be a lot higher than $1200 per ton to discourage this wasteful use of just burning it away.

Most uses of engines are nonessential, and the uses that are essential (food production and delivery, emergency services) are only the case because of past decisions and planning. What about the fact that the 1% cause half of aviation emissions? What about those same 1% that: "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" You must justify this extreme level of inequality to justify the use of diesel power in a pleasure boat when you could just use the sails instead. Then I hear "boomers" whine that they couldn't fly to iceland for 2 weeks because of covid when it is clear to me they should not be allowed to fly anywhere ever again and that would be just fine. The same goes for combustion engines in yachts: you don't need to use one anymore ever again, and that would be just fine. synthetic sails can achieve the equivalent of thousands of miles per gallon to power small boats. What if people 500 years ago had wasted all the worlds of resources and your life today was extremely difficult instead, what would you think of them?

Let me know which statements are not facts so we can improve the quality of information here. Many of my statements are opinions: I am only interested in incorrect facts.

[Montanan]

Insightful thoughts of Dan Natchez, president of DANIEL S. NATCHEZ and ASSOCIATES Inc., a leading international environmental waterfront design consulting company specializing in the design of marinas and marina resorts throughout the world.

Published by MarinaDockage.com on January 15, 2020

Sea Level Rise/Climate Change – Dealing with Rising Waters

https://www.marinadockage.com/sea-le...limate-change/

[Montanan]

Another insightful article published in Marina Dock Age

Lessons in Sea-Level Change Impacts from the Great Lakes
By Mauricio Wesson Published on June 24, 2021

https://www.marinadockage.com/lesson...e-great-lakes/

"The Great Lakes encompass the largest amount of freshwater in the world in an area covering over 94,000 square miles – earning the region the nickname “the Fresh Coast.” What is less commonly known is those same lakes represent almost half of the total coastline of the contiguous U.S. The five Great Lakes states have a combined 4,530 miles of U.S. coastline, compared to 2,165 miles of Atlantic coast, 1,293 miles of Pacific West Coast, and 1,631 miles along the Gulf of Mexico.

Over the past two years, Fresh Coast communities have been struggling with impacts from record-high water levels that many people do not associate with freshwater lakes. The size and depth of the Great Lakes allow for the generation of storm waves up to 29-feet high, a size rivaling those in the Caribbean Sea and other oceans. The shores of the lakes include the sandy beaches typical of many saltwater coasts, and are exposed to similar coastal processes, including sediment transport, rip currents, storm surge, erosion, and flooding."

[Talk Story]

These posts are always a troll ... if you were so concerned about a foot in less than 30 years you would be building your homestead to have a place for your and the ones you love to come and survive the rising tides. Not bitchin on a website about sailing, which sadly seems to be less about sailing and more about bitchin. But hey, this place was founded by a Bitchin guy, so have at it.