US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by 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?

Actually 7.8 billion as of 2020

Well now I am here to watch it . And to old to do anymore time in military service.

So I can sit back and say told ya but you didn't listen .: cheers:

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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?

Read and wonder.. an independent interview.
https://towndock.net/shippingnews/se...-and-alexandra

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

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.

A lot of peer reviewed papers have been plain wrong. Not impressed.

The paper I linked discussed overlap extensively, and at the end, gets the C02 contribution to warming closer to reality than the current models do.

Here's the latest Lower tropo data-

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Read and wonder.. an independent interview.
https://towndock.net/shippingnews/se...-and-alexandra

Pictures say it all .
Thanks for that one .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

A lot of peer reviewed papers have been plain wrong. Not impressed.

The paper I linked discussed overlap extensively, and at the end, gets the C02 contribution to warming closer to reality than the current models do.

Here's the latest Lower tropo data-

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50

Wanna have fun look at the global average temp anomaly for March 1983.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

[Dieseldude]

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?

We have been threatened for decades with the idea that oil supplies will quickly be exhausted. The first big threat came in the 1970's "oil crises". What was really at work was the politics of major oil producing nations. After about four decades, we have not come close to exhausting reserves. In fact just a few years ago oil prices crashed because the world was awash with excess production.



Again, the recent price increases are due to politics, and have little to do with actual limits of supply. It seems that the only limits on supply are capacity to find and extract more. Technology to do this continues to improve. Of course it is possible that the earth will at some time deplete recoverable reserves. But we are not near that point yet. There is no cause to panic and throw money and resources into unreliable and costly wind and solar, and electric vehicles which do not solve anything. Huge input from conventional generation is still required to feed the grid and maintain reliability when the wind is not active, and the sun is not shining.



Electric cars will be viable only when they can travel about 500 miles on a charge that can be done in minutes, not hours. And of course the cost of them must be lower then conventional vehicles. And replacement battery costs must be far lower than they are currently to keep the cost of extending useful life of the vehicle economical after the original battery wears out. As it stands, EV's seem to be like cheap cordless drills. When the battery pack expires, it is not worth purchasing a new battery.



To be ready for any future depletion, reliable technologies must be developed. The thorium reactor is one such example. A lot of technology can be developed within the 500 year time frame that you had mentioned. But politics and big business interests are not conducive. The world has large thorium reserves dispersed in many nations. So no government and no large corporation can control the market. Until the politics and big business issues of alternative energy are solved, development of them will be problematic. These are the same politics that lead to wars about oil resources that you had mentioned.



Large oil producers do not seem to be concerned about solar and wind development because they know that these cannot replace their product. They are only expensive white elephants. Viable alternatives such as thorium are given little attention. If the world flounders around putting their eggs into the costly basket of unreliable wind and solar, society will still become dysfunctional, when in several hundred years it faces the prospect of depleted oil reserves.


Of course, returning to cotton sails, horses, and massive manual labor is problematic. Such a society must still produce goods that require large input of energy such as iron and steel. Even during the later era of cotton sails, cotton production was highly mechanized with coal powered machinery. In effect, coal made mass sail power viable. Much can be done to decrease consumption to extend useful life of oil resources. For example, do western nations really need to have goods manufactured in Asia and transported around the world? Do people really need to take vacations aboard cruise vessels?



The highly globalized economy that has developed over the past few decades has come at the cost of high energy consumption. Of course putting limits on how people in a free and democratic society chose to spend their money and time is an issue. If someone can afford a cruise, why not? An intelligent change in personal ethics is part of the answer, not forced behavior and carbon taxes. More taxation when working people are already taxed beyond ability to pay only further impoverish and limit choices. Not everyone has the income to take cruises and purchase unneeded goods.



Your mention of selfishness unfairly demonizes everyone. How is the person who consumes gasoline just to get to their job, and uses some oil to heat their home being selfish? Are they to quit their job and become a burden to others? Would this not be the ultimate in selfishness? A return to good ethics by government, institutions, business, and individuals is needed before the technical issues of energy can be meaningfully resolved.

[Bycrick]

Each generation manages to "screw things up" in its own way. Many of the world's governments subsidized the building of railroads because it allowed opening up previously unexploited land and resources to support increasing populations. Then you got the railroad monopolies. Then they built government-funded highway systems, which took increasing amounts of space and resulted urban sprawl and pollution. Then they built government-funded airports and we all "know" about airplane pollution. And then governments funded or subsidized fossil fuels to keep the whole process moving.

OK, the climate change zealots can point out all those old "mistakes." And yet, their solution is to get more government help to fund THEIR bright ideas and causes, because this time they’ll get it right.

Is it any wonder that I don’t believe them?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Pictures say it all .
Thanks for that one .

For me its the pictures and his achievements that say it all..
The man lives what he advocates.. walks the talk as they say..
He makes my lifestyle as a liveaboard seem in luxury, and many consider me basic..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by 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 [ I think that's called an oxymoron , but anyways...] is going to produce entirely different results than a survey of people who are actually working for a living by producing something.

Right. Educators produce nothing.

And of course, people who do surveys (all day, every day...) don't know how to do surveys. You've got this nailed, don't you...

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

One doesn't vote on science. Observations and experiments are made, conclusions presented and debated, and whether or not you understand or accept them... facts don't care.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boatman61

For me its the pictures and his achievements that say it all..
The man lives what he advocates.. walks the talk as they say..
He makes my lifestyle as a liveaboard seem in luxury, and many consider me basic..

Sorry but I have sailed at least as many miles ×10 but my boats never looked like that. The only ocean I haven't sailed is the Atlantic Ocean.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Each generation manages to "screw things up" in its own way. Many of the world's governments subsidized the building of railroads because it allowed opening up previously unexploited land and resources to support increasing populations. Then you got the railroad monopolies. Then they built government-funded highway systems, which took increasing amounts of space and resulted urban sprawl and pollution. Then they built government-funded airports and we all "know" about airplane pollution. And then governments funded or subsidized fossil fuels to keep the whole process moving.

OK, the climate change zealots can point out all those old "mistakes." And yet, their solution is to get more government help to fund THEIR bright ideas and causes, because this time they’ll get it right.

Is it any wonder that I don’t believe them?

Good historical observations Bycrick. It seems that government interference in the economy has caused many problems in the past, and we suffer the legacy of such incursions. The public, through taxation, has paid for infrastructure that benefits the owners of giant corporations. This is effectively a form of fascism, as it places the owners in position to strongly influence government that should rightfully controlled by the democratic will of the people. The owners of giant conglomerates and think tank organizations that they control have been defeating democracy for generations. Perhaps the most dangerous one today is the World Economic Form.


To break this cycle will require massive effort by the public. The recent massive public funding of giant pharmaceutical companies is the latest example of the incursion of big business and government into our lives. Alternatives were not even considered. Are the trucker convoys that we are seeing just the beginning of the backlash that is required to tame big business and government? It is little wonder that government and big business is so determined to quash the effort that jeopardizes their grip on power. They have been fighting dirty with abuse of their power. It seems that at least some of the people are waking up after generations of putting up and shutting up.


More and more people are tuning out the legacy media and tuning in to alternate sources. But they fight back by censuring the internet. If the alternate media can somehow continue, we could see the end of media fabrications, and a positive change in how governments work.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Wanna have fun look at the global average temp anomaly for March 1983.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

I just was plotting this data from UAH-

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

I can't upload the spreadsheets, but there is a long pause in this series, since about 1997.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Each generation manages to "screw things up" in its own way. Many of the world's governments subsidized the building of railroads because it allowed opening up previously unexploited land and resources to support increasing populations. Then you got the railroad monopolies. Then they built government-funded highway systems, which took increasing amounts of space and resulted urban sprawl and pollution. Then they built government-funded airports and we all "know" about airplane pollution. And then governments funded or subsidized fossil fuels to keep the whole process moving.

OK, the climate change zealots can point out all those old "mistakes." And yet, their solution is to get more government help to fund THEIR bright ideas and causes, because this time they’ll get it right.

Is it any wonder that I don’t believe them?

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Good historical observations Bycrick...

Sarcasm aside, you've made a great case [with which I agree], for taking great care, with the proposed solutions to ACC.
Obviously, your valid argument has nothing to do with the fact of climate change, it's causes, nor it's likely effects.
And, it's not a valid argument to do nothing, for fear that something may go wrong [or less right, than hoped].

Dieseldude, on the other hand, is merely indulging in a childish & lunatic rant.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

I just was plotting this data from UAH-

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

I can't upload the spreadsheets, but there is a long pause in this series, since about 1997.

Ok here's a blown up screenshot of it 1983 3

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

I just was plotting this data from UAH-

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

I can't upload the spreadsheets, but there is a long pause in this series, since about 1997.

Roy Spencer plots the data.



1997 was the largest El Nino event in the pervious 50 years. It is called cherry picking.