US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Wow! A sensible posting on here for a change! It has been an exercise weeding through the bogus climate cult propaganda. Honest commentary In a world in which lies are the norm, good people fall for the lies and a truth speaker is despised.

The Science Publishing Group from which this paper emanates is one of the worst of the predatory journal publishers.

You have been duped.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That explains why I couldn't find it pay wall

It was analyzed here:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...8-projections/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It was analyzed here:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...8-projections/

Thank you

Ok so business as usual is what we have basically been doing but the observed is more in line with his scenario C than scenario B as the paper suggests .
Land and ocean combined
I have the midwatch tonight on this trip I will read some of the next posted papers then .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Science Publishing Group from which this paper emanates is one of the worst of the predatory journal publishers.

You have been duped.

Another denier out to discredit a source. Much of the scientific community has been cleared of honesty by the new inquisition anyway. Scientists who submit papers that question or refute the "climate change consensus" often do not get published. They often do not get grant money either. Many journals are untrustworthy anyway. They are often little different from big media who ignore truth and publish lies. You and the other climate change cultists are the ones who have really been duped. You forget the catastrophic climate predictions that have not happened. The journals and big media do not talk about them. Why would they fling egg on their own face?

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Another denier out to discredit a source. Much of the scientific community has been cleared of honesty by the new inquisition anyway. Scientists who submit papers that question or refute the "climate change consensus" often do not get published. They often do not get grant money either. Many journals are untrustworthy anyway. They are often little different from big media who ignore truth and publish lies. You and the other climate change cultists are the ones who have really been duped. You forget the catastrophic climate predictions that have not happened. The journals and big media do not talk about them. Why would they fling egg on their own face?

You still fail to address the issue of burning through all the oil resources in < 500 years rather than tens of thousands, the fact that no viable alternatives for life-saving operations such as helicopter rescue exist, and that oil resources lead to wars, and that people in a few generations will suffer without any oil at all. Will they be forced to use cotton sails? How will they even produce cotton then without violating human rights?

None of this has anything to do with the climate, but leads to question why excessive and wasteful use is tolerated. Is it just pure selfishness of living today and not caring about other people today and all of the people of tomorrow?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

You still fail to address the issue of burning through all the oil resources in < 500 years rather than tens of thousands, the fact that no viable alternatives for life-saving operations such as helicopter rescue exist, and that oil resources lead to wars, and that people in a few generations will suffer without any oil at all. Will they be forced to use cotton sails? How will they even produce cotton then without violating human rights?

None of this has anything to do with the climate, but leads to question why excessive and wasteful use is tolerated. Is it just pure selfishness of living today and not caring about other people today and all of the people of tomorrow?

Every time they say oil will run out science develops new ways to get it making that date change by centuries . Where do you get your 500 years worth number from?

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Every time they say oil will run out science develops new ways to get it making that date change by centuries . Where do you get your 500 years worth number from?

500 years is generous and assuming we discover a lot more than proven reserves. We are burning through it at an alarming rate. It costs more to extract than ever. Do you suggest we will always find more forever and it will never run out? Or do you suggest there will be plenty at a glutinous rate of consumption until you personally die? Which is it? We need proven alternate technologies for essential services before it's acceptable to tolerate wasteful inefficient use on recreational activities such as (but not limited to) diesel power in small boats that can be sailed instead.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Science Publishing Group from which this paper emanates is one of the worst of the predatory journal publishers.

You have been duped.

Read the paper and show where it is wrong ?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Read the paper and show where it is wrong ?

I'm surprised you brought this paper up again. As I explained a couple of days ago, it has the basic science wrong. It is science that has been well known for 100 years. That has been verified over and over again by experiment. Here is what I posted several days ago when you first posted the link.

The paper fails to take into account the absorption and re-radiation which occurs in all layers of the atmosphere. Here is a quote from the paper:

" As can be seen, most of the radiation absorption occurs in the lower 5000m of the atmosphere. Beyond that point the radiation in the CO2 and H2O absorption bands has been absorbed and reduced to almost zero. Little further absorption can occur."

This is just wrong and probably one of the reasons they got the bogus answer at the end.

Here is a quote from a great paper which does a good job explaining the science.

"longwave radiation emitted from the surface is absorbed and reemitted by greenhouse gases and clouds throughout the earth's atmosphere. The transfer of longwave radiation depends on both the local temperature of the gaseous absorber and the efficiency of the gases to absorb radiation at a given wavelength. This absorption efficiency varies with wavelength. It is also important to note that different gases can absorb radiation at the same wavelengths; this is called the overlap effect."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...l?tab_body=pdf

This paper was published in 1997, it has been peer reviewed and has their calculations verified by measurements.

The paper you have cited does not verify their theory with measured results. If they had would find that the top of atmosphere radiative flux would not match the measured value.

This paper written by 3 guys with no climate experience at all, published by a site that I could also publish on if I paid the $1000 fee. It has had zero review as part of it's publication. It just plain wrong.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The algorithm is simply an expression of the guess.
https://apple.news/AVVVmG1CjTVGW_GJAsOxzcg
No wonder the climate change zealots want to ignore my comments about the voters.

The actual research, that Bycrick’s NBC News article discussed:

“Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050" ~ PEW Research
But just 31% want to phase out use of fossil fuels completely
Here ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...utral-by-2050/

More research from PEW ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/

[Bycrick]

Thanks, Gord. The results of "surveys" are strongly correlated with whom you survey and how you ask the question. Hence a survey of ignorant college-attending liberals is going to produce entirely different results than a survey of people who are actually working for a living by producing something. Asking "should we plant a million trees?" or "should we clean up our streets?" yields a different answer than "How about the cost of gas/cooking fuel/heating cost doubling?"

As a political activist, you count and brag about all the people who agree with you. As someone who disagrees with many of your positions, I count the number of people who will make it a point to stop your political solutions. Is the glass half full or half empty?

But this story is a good example of why some of the zealots on this thread are so ready to ignore the voters.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Thanks, Gord. The results of "surveys" are strongly correlated with whom you survey and how you ask the question...

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults.
A total of 10,237 panelists responded out of 11,609 who were sampled, for a response rate of 88%.
The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 10,237 respondents is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

See more about:
“The American Trends Panel survey methodology” ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...0-methodology/

And:
“PEW Research Methods” ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/

Learn & understand, before you criticize. You might even read the actual polling results, which you introduced into this conversation; in order to determine if any of your criticisms actually apply, to this poll.
Previously linked [#895] ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...utral-by-2050/

[Bycrick]

While Pew is certainly NOT a crackpot organization out to prove a point, you should know that a "random" sample is neither "random" in the mathematical sense, nor necessarily representative. The US has some 300 million people. 10000 is a drop in the bucket. If a surveyor wants to choose those 10000, doing so "randomly" by throwing darts at the phonebook, or voters rolls, or drivers license records, is unlikely to be representative, which means that the panel includes the "correct" proportions of rich/poor, right/left, black/white/brown/whatever, rural/urban, college educated/illiterate, etc. So, while I might be able to mathematically "prove" that a "random" sample of 10000 people will produce an error rate of +/-x%, that’s only if my "random" sample also happens to be "representative."

That’s why one should always be skeptical of surveys, unless of course one agrees with them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

500 years is generous and assuming we discover a lot more than proven reserves. We are burning through it at an alarming rate. It costs more to extract than ever. Do you suggest we will always find more forever and it will never run out? Or do you suggest there will be plenty at a glutinous rate of consumption until you personally die? Which is it? We need proven alternate technologies for essential services before it's acceptable to tolerate wasteful inefficient use on recreational activities such as (but not limited to) diesel power in small boats that can be sailed instead.

You really would fit in here in the Pacific northwest.

I have a question up to you to answer or tell me to ......
What do / did you do for a living?

[Bycrick]

Seven billion people will burn through a lot of resources, whether it’s oil, or water, or copper, or steel or wheat. When the supplies of whatever get short, they will "go to war" to insure their supply of whatever they think they need, whether it’s oil, water or a supply of human hearts to assuage to gods. So what’s new?