US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You may wish to check with geologists about your assertions.

Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present and future climate
Caroline H. Lear, Pallavi Anand, Tom Blenkinsop, Gavin L. Foster, Mary Gagen, Babette Hoogakker, Robert D. Larter, Daniel J. Lunt, I. Nicholas McCave, Erin McClymont, Richard D. Pancost, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, David M. Schultz, Colin Summerhayes, Charles J.R. Williams and Jan Zalasiewicz
Journal of the Geological Society, 178, jgs2020-239, 28 December 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-239

Sorry, but the quote is only narrative without evidence. No historical observation, no scientific data. It is all opinion. It would not be admissible in a court of law.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Most climate advocates desire to utilize capitalism as a means for advancement.

capitalism is to be a greedy as possible and increase and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few (shareholders) with absolute disregard for external costs (pillaging environment)

So no, most climate advocates do not desire to utilize capitalism. In fact, it should be abolished completely. There should be a maximum individual wealth and maximum wage limits rather than minimum wage and many other similar ideas implemented while removing the current set of rules for example eliminating income tax while greatly increasing property tax, sales tax, and (unfortunately for now until it is eliminated completely) carbon tax to make up the difference. Preventing harmful use of resources like monoculture, and preserving at least 85% (prefer 95%) of the land area in a natural state (which is easily possible but not with significant meat consumption)

Originally Posted by Montanan

So basically saying it would be yesterday's news, [or rather yestermillieniums news].

As for as extraterrestrial life, yes the fact we have detected nothing is a strong indication that the probability of our own survival for very long (much longer at all) is extremely low.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And your point?

Pay attention .

It was all explained up thread you really must B having a senior moment.

The MMGWC prediction is they would be underwater by 2018
So another failed mmgwc prophecy

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Neither the MWP nor the LIA were global.

Neukom, R., Steiger, N., Gómez-Navarro, J.J. et al. No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era. Nature 571, 550–554 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

Jack try again we have had this discussion and you lost it was global.

[newhaul]

Evidence for a “Little Ice Age” glacial advance within the Antarctic Peninsula – Examples from glacially-overrun raised beaches

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379121004029

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...south-america/

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-ice-ag...-american.html

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-481-2672-9_16

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please explain the this discontinuity in the middle of the 18th century



Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7

This is a demand for data that is not given. Such a demand makes the demander appear as cocky and arrogant with a bone to pick. The graph appears to be more spiky from about the 18th century. This could be due to different measurement methods. Methods to determine temperature from the mid 18th century would be different than those that would be used for earlier times. Early temperatures would be obtained by historic proxy. Later temperatures would be by direct measure. But turning local measurements and historic calculations into global averages would have to be a highly imaginative process. The quality of such data is questionable. Apparent increases can be due to "heat island" effect that appeared with industrial development.


Even taking the data at face value shows that temperature did vary before large scale use of hydrocarbon fuels. So the graph confirms natural climate variation, and does little in favor of the theory of anthropomorphic warming.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

So the consumption drops dramatically as does my own when solar energy is not available. This is the correct behavior, though the contrasts will need to be more pronounced. Rather than a 30% dip, it could be a 90% dip, maintaining essential services such as hospitals from battery reserves, pumped hydro, imported power from elsewhere that sun/wind is available. Assembly lines may be halted for lack of energy, instead the workers can perform tasks that do not rely on electrical energy.

If we produced products that didn't break or fail in a few years, there would not be a need to produce so many of them anyway which would basically solve the problem. It did in the past, as I often have hand tools 100 years old where a new tool I buy at the store today breaks the first time I use it.

This is a strength to be able to adapt and have multiple skills, more knowledge and so forth. Buildings can be heated/cooled passively and maintain temperature through the year without energy input. This has been proven with geodesic domes, earth ships, and may other examples.

It is simply not true that the electrical power grid needs 100% uptime. Industry must adapt and modify their schedules to the weather. As sailors we all understand how transportation availability varies depending on the current conditions, but in the end we get done what we need to and move from place to place. Insisting on a "right now" approach to consumption is an issue, and not a legitimate argument for conventional power or any other type of behavior, it is simply selfish. It is unacceptable that some here insist on diesel power in their boats as this is just an example of selfish and spoiled behavior.

How to get to 1% C02 ? My earlier question to you (post #684), worldwide I take it, in what amount of time ? Population still going up, down, stays at the current level ?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

How to get to 1% C02 ? My earlier question to you (post #684), worldwide I take it, in what amount of time ? Population still going up, down, stays at the current level ?

Good point on durability of goods. The current predominance of cheap stuff that wears out quickly as opposed to quality goods is certainly wasteful of energy and industrial capacity.


Altering modern schedules around unreliable wind and solar just does not seem workable. Imagine being hundreds of miles from home and having to wait days for wind to charge the batteries. If you are on a leisurely sailing trip, you probable have plenty of time to wait on wind or endure slow progress. With wind as a big portion of the electrical grid, it just becomes too unreliable. Conventional petroleum, coal. or nuclear plants must be kept on stand by and ready to switch on line. So wind and solar generation solves nothing.

[markpierce]

CO2 is great for plants! Plants provide us food and and animal plant-eaters providing us meat too.

[RaymondR]

Thank god it's risen, so now I can go anchor in all those places without grounding during the night on a falling tide.

[GordMay]

QUOTE=newhaul;3584423]And yet the islands are growing in real-estate.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.netzerowatch.com/most-pacific-indian-ocean-islands-expanding-not-sinking-scientists-reveal/#:~:text=Between%201999%E2%80%932001%20and%202017, increase%20in%20atoll%20land%20area
Inconvenient facts indeed .
Between the oldest (1999–2001 or 1999–2002) and most recent (2017) composite images, the land area on the 221 atolls examined increased by 61.74 km² from 1007.60 km² to 1069.35 km², a 6.1 % increase. Most of this increase, 38.89 km², occurred between 2013 and 2017. The global-scale change in atoll island landmass was largely a product of an increase of island area in the Maldives and South China Sea (SCS), which account for 54.05 km² (87.56 %) of the global increase in land area. Between 1999–2001 and 2017, the Maldives added 37.50 km² of land area, representing 60.74 % of the net global increase in atoll land area.
And because you will not like my source
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacifi...on-bigger.html

The second study [1], about Tuvalu, that newhaul refers to, found eight of the atolls, and almost three-quarters of the islands, grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, DESPITE sea levels in the country having RISEN, at twice the global average.

The authors also say that climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

I found the study[1] interesting, but note that it’s “inconvenient” findings are quite limited, and it’s conclusions only somewhat heartening.
Well worth a read, though.


[1] “Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ~ by Paul S. Kench et al

Abstract
Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics. ...
... Climate change remains one of the single greatest environmental threats to the livelihood and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific. ...

[1] Study ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

Peer Review File ➥ https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM2_ESM.pdf

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

capitalism is to be a greedy as possible and increase and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few (shareholders) with absolute disregard for external costs (pillaging environment)

So no, most climate advocates do not desire to utilize capitalism. In fact, it should be abolished completely. There should be a maximum individual wealth and maximum wage limits rather than minimum wage and many other similar ideas implemented while removing the current set of rules for example eliminating income tax while greatly increasing property tax, sales tax, and (unfortunately for now until it is eliminated completely) carbon tax to make up the difference. Preventing harmful use of resources like monoculture, and preserving at least 85% (prefer 95%) of the land area in a natural state (which is easily possible but not with significant meat consumption)


As for as extraterrestrial life, yes the fact we have detected nothing is a strong indication that the probability of our own survival for very long (much longer at all) is extremely low.

This discussion on economic systems and taxation shows that the theory of anthropomorphic climate change is not about science, but it is about politics. The idea of preserving 95% of land in a natural state is also a political objective. This would require massive depopulation. Are the climate change believers ready to volunteer?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

What's with this word, "denialism"? ... When something is proven to be wrong, of course it is scientifically and morally correct to oppose or "deny" it.

The science of anthropogenic climate change is settled. There is no longer any debate about the fundamentals. It is only cranks, conspiracy theorists, political opportunists, media hounds, and fossil fuel-dependent corporate lobbyists who continue with this garbage. Science denialism is a mindset that uses the following techniques as means of perpetuating a set of lies:
FLICC
Fake experts
Logical fallacies
Impossible expectations
Cherry Picking
Conspiracy theories

The logical fallacies typically include
Red herring
Misrepresentation
Jumping to conclusions
False dichotomy

We have seen examples of every one of these in the denialist tropes dragged into this thread. It is amazing to me to see what appear to be intelligent people engaging in this foolish and pathetic enterprise.
The big one in this thread is folks who put up some half-baked, cherry picked bit of data that they are sure overturns the phenomenally large mass of evidence that supports ACC. It is as if they have seen one of those cute Sharper Image magnetic desk toys with a floating object and are sure that they have disproven gravity. All they have proven in that they don't understand the scientific method at all.

[Bycrick]

Ah, another off-topic complaint about the "durability of goods." "Too much cheap stuff that breaks." Rather than waste your time reading learned scientific papers on the subject, watch the old Alec Guinness movie "The Man in the White Suit."

If stuff lasted forever, what happens to all the designing, manufacturing, sales, distribution jobs? Where’s the incentive for "progress" if nothing needs replacing?

Or the complaints that "I can’t buy this $2 part and so I have to throw away this $200 widget." Of course you can’t. It costs just as much to stock, sell and deliver a $2 item as a $200 item.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

This discussion on economic systems and taxation shows that the theory of anthropomorphic (sic) climate change is not about science, but it is about politics.

That is rather binary thinking.

3623 U.S. Economists
4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve
28 Nobel Laureate Economists
15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers

support a carbon tax.

https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/