US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not a climate scientist.

Cherry picking my posts again eh well what should I have expected?

He based his statements on Dr Hansen's statements . Do I need to list all of his failed predictions? ( again?)

[newhaul]

BTW we are at 0°C above baseline for the month of February. Not a good look for sea level rise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

While this obviously isn't a court, it is full of feigned 'expert' liberal arts majors debating climate science.

Assumption: it makes an ass out of you and me. . Also, it's wrong.

There is no consensus among climate scientists quantifying anthropogenic climate change. It follows that there is therefore no cause for action.

First - even if the first statement was true, it does not in any system of logic support the conclusion in your second statement.

Second - the first statement isn't true, in any practical sense. There is a very good idea about how much warming has resulted from human activity.

Your continued link-free assertions of proven falsehoods... why?

[boatman61]

Hmmm...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/who-c...tist_b_8332374

[Bycrick]

Hmmm. We decide to poll college professors on "climate change." Since college professors are, as a group, overwhelmingly self-declared Democrats, (anywhere from 4:1 to 9:1), I hardly find it surprising that they agree with the loony left. Would you trust a poll taken at CPAC to be representative?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

There is no consensus among climate scientists quantifying anthropogenic climate change. It follows that there is therefore no cause for action.

Really?

No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes AGW.

Over a half a dozen studies of the scientific literature have replicated the consensus.



And more recently

Scientists Unanimous on Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2019
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467620922151

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by 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.

This seems like a response from a modern marketing specialist who is not in touch with the reality of the real value of goods. We are living in a false economy of planned obsolescence and goods that are intentionally designed to fail early. It cannot be justified that a $2 part for $200 complete unit should cost on par with the whole unit. This is a sales gimmick to sell more product. The continuation of jobs to support manufacturing, distribution, of new products cannot be justified by shoddy production. This activity can repurposed for whole other product development and production enterprises.



As an example, if the computer of your modern boat engine fails, would you be happy to replace the whole engine? Of course not. What if a spare computer price is $1300? The dealer and manufacturer generally do not have a computer repair service. There might be a failed electrolytic capacitor inside that is only worth $5. A skilled technician could replace it for a $50 charge. But commonly, there is no system in place to do this. The Engine manufacturer will not even provide service information for testing and repair. So now you are out $1300 when you might have solved it for $55. Your $1245 cost beyond the $55 repair cost could have been spent on alternative things. Maybe you would like to have a higher capacity inverter to run more equipment. But the money that you would have spent on that is gone into the needless engine computer. I worked in a shop repairing electronic equipment. I tested circuits and replaced individual transisters, chips, diodes, etc. This had been quite economical to do for a lot of products 30 years ago. But with manufacturing and distribution changes, opportunity to to this is severely reduced.



An example of a simpler item is a wood plane. The old Stanley block planes had brass thumb wheels for setting blade depth. Stanley changed to plastic of which the threads will easily strip. But the old brass ones would last a life time. Stanley saves a few dollars on their cost. But likely they charged as much as they did for the older tool with the superior brass wheel. Owners will have the needless cost and inconvenience of ordering a new wheel several times in the life of the tool. And who knows if the part will be available in 20 years? The original design would last a life time. Quality wood working hand tools, if cared for, can generally last the working life time of a tradesman. They can even be passed on to the next generation. In this case, the plasiticized new version is certain to be a failure.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really?

No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes AGW.

Over a half a dozen studies of the scientific literature have replicated the consensus.



And more recently

Scientists Unanimous on Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2019
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467620922151

Post the actual numbers and studies not just a meme jack you know better

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When I see some positive and we’ll-reasoned actions, I’ll be all in favor.

For example, just a couple days ago, there was a story about California talking about putting solar panels over their aqueducts. It generates electricity and cuts down on evaporation. A great idea. Better than cutting down 6000+ acres of trees to do it in Virginia. Or installing them in desert areas where just a few years ago the environmentalists were whining that motorcycles and dune buggies would destroy the environment.

But the zealots prefer to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, abandoning capitalism, transferring trillions of dollars to the "poor," abolishing plastics, etc. Thus I wonder which is more important to them, the environment or their economic goals?

In reality you'd rather complain about how you don't see the " changes "being valid, for environment, or economics.
Because all of this is valid, except the parts you cannot predict or deny.
Contribute to the Change or sit back and watch others.
It is your choice.
Nature will be our teacher.
We Don't have a choice on that.
Boatyarddog

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Post the actual numbers and studies not just a meme jack you know better

How many times will you ask the numbers before you make a decision on wether to commit to a statement or belief,one way or another?
How many Studies, polls, scientific articles, periodicals,cites, references, do you need.
And, you can find that info yourself.
Then take away what pleases your eye, and call it your truth.
Enough debating!
What's your belief?
Boatyarddog

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

How many times will you ask the numbers before you make a decision on wether to commit to a statement or belief,one way or another?
How many Studies, polls, scientific articles, periodicals,cites, references, do you need.
And, you can find that info yourself.
Then take away what pleases your eye, and call it your truth.
Enough debating!
What's your belief?
Boatyarddog

The studies are really not pro MMGWC. They are all over the spectrum each paper may go from no man to 99% man but most are state no problems as a result of what they trecieve as man causes.


As to my side of it you really don't know me or read my opinions over many threads and many years.

It's not man it's the sun that controls all life on the planet.

Yes we could do better at keeping our crap out of the oceans . But nothing we do affects the weather or climate on the larger scale. .

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Hmmm. We decide to poll college professors on "climate change." Since college professors are, as a group, overwhelmingly self-declared Democrats, (anywhere from 4:1 to 9:1), I hardly find it surprising that they agree with the loony left. Would you trust a poll taken at CPAC to be representative?

I'd believe it more than Anything said by By Trump or any of the Loonies on the Right at AFPAC.
Boatyarddog

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well that specificly was Dr Hussain Shishab Shihab.
Based I'm sure on the predictions of Hansen

Hussein Shihab said [in 1988] “an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres, in the next 20 to 40 years could be ‘catastrophic’ for most of the islands, which were no more than a metre above sea level.”
➥ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798


Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that [7-8 cm], coming in just the last two and a half decades.


Mr. Shihab holds a Masters Degree in Science from the Kuban Agriculture Institute in the Russian Federation, as well as certificates in media and broadcast management and environmental management and assessment.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Hmmm. We decide to poll college professors on "climate change." Since college professors are, as a group, overwhelmingly self-declared Democrats, (anywhere from 4:1 to 9:1), I hardly find it surprising that they agree with the loony left. Would you trust a poll taken at CPAC to be representative?

Putting aside the fact that higher education normally skews liberal, you're just projecting. The US right is absolutely mired in divisive populist groupthink (exhibits: the recent CPAC, "stolen election", QAnon, Putin-admiration, etc ); I suppose it's only natural that they would think that the US 'left' (most of whom would be deemed moderate or centrists in any other country) is similarly afflicted. And the US is but one country, not the world.

[Bycrick]

BYD — So, according to you, I have to 100% believe not only in your problem description, but also in your proposed solutions. All or nothing. No nuances or differences of opinion. One monolithic belief system. "Contribute to change" by which you seem to mean "Do it your way." That sounds suspiciously like a religion, not science.