Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Obama probably did reduce sea level rise over what it would have been under McCain/Romney, but much less than would have been possible if he hadn't been blocked whenever possible by the Koch-controlled Republican puppets and their legions of Fox News-watching climate change deniers.
You might drown, but much of the U.S. will be well above the new sea levels.
If all of the world's ice melts, we'll see sea levels over 200 feet higher, and likely more as the oceans warm and consequentially expand (you did take general science, didn't you; it's not obvious).
I don't get it.
You don't think that this is being measured?
IN an honest way, of curse not.
To fit the leftist agenda, then yes it is being measured, now I need you to prove how long they have been measuring the depth of the sea, vs. the erosion of beaches.
I'm a Engineer with a background in Physics. Yeah, i took general science. How about you?
So you're saying that reducing carbon emissions didn't have any impact on reducing the amount of sea level rise because you don't believe carbon emissions are a causative factor?
Obviously, the vast majority of climate scientists would disagree with such a belief.
I'm not an engineer, but I did take college physics, and I studied the history of science and the scientific method from the Baconian method forward. As such as I developed a very healthy respect for scientists and have followed the evolution of climate change science for several decades.
As an admirer of Fred Singer, I was a climate change skeptic for many years, but changed by mind well over a decade ago as the science became overwhelming.
I'm not an admirer of smug non-climate change scientists, or engineers, who believe that they possess superior knowledge to those doing the actual work.
When climate change skeptics do the work, they sometimes change their mind, such as did the truly accomplished Berkeley physicist Richard Muller in his landmark, Koch-funded study.
<<CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.>>
Some of the best, and most disturbing, materials on climate change are produced by ocean scientists, such as those at Woods Hole. Ocean acidification, the twin head of climate change, may be a more dangerous threat than rising sea levels. Ocean scientists have documented how the oceans have absorbed much of the carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel burning, as well as how the warming of the deep ocean has muted much of the impact of the anticipated atmospheric temperature rises in recent years. The recent Godzilla El Nino has released some of this captured heat back into the atmosphere, resulting in the temperature spikes of the past 18 months.
I'm certain that you and the other climate change deniers in this thread knew all of this. Not.
Personally, I find you neither knowledgeable, nor laughable. It's sad that so many intelligent individuals can be so amused wallowing in their own ignorance.
So you're saying that reducing carbon emissions didn't have any impact on reducing the amount of sea level rise because you don't believe carbon emissions are a causative factor?
Obviously, the vast majority of climate scientists would disagree with such a belief.
If every person on the planet, in every country on the planet, went back to living as we did in the stone ages, it could take up to 1,000 years to reduce sea level rise, if ever. You think Obama did it in 8 years?
"A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Looks like we're going around in circles... and now you're accusing me of doing the very thing you're guilty of.
Yes, coastal changes are inevitable. My point isn't that they're not inevitable, it's that you were claiming that the ARGUMENT is that only global warming can cause coastal changes. I don't BELIEVE that ONLY AGW can cause coastal changes, but I do think that The RATE at which they're occurring, and the fact that the sea level is generally rising and NOT falling is probably due to AGW. You can't separate the fact that humans have warmed the planet from the effects of the anthropogenic warming. So you think that if we hadn't warmed the Earth and the earth had slightly cooled (which is what the models show), sea level would have still changed in exactly the same fashion?
I notice you've slipped in that whole 'to a small degree' thing, which is usually what people on this forum do when they don't want to sound like idiots who completely deny that human activity is warming the planet, but they want to downplay the role of humans as much as possible.
The argument here is that human activity is LARGELY responsible for THESE SPECIFIC changes, not ALL changes since the beginning of time. The argument is also that the changes brought on by AGW are DIFFERENT from the 'natural' changes because they are FASTER and MORE DANGEROUS, and give everyone less time to adapt.
Did you even read the links I posted?
And you claim to want to focus on solutions, but really what you're trying to do is shut down the debate. If you think we haven't seen these same arguments over and over again on this forum, you're wrong.
Anyways, one solution is to acknowledge that fossil fuel consumption is playing a role in sea level rise and in order to lessen future damage we should focus on other forms of energy.
The reason you're not hearing it is because you don't want to hear it.
A part of the solution is to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, which is exactly why this debate is 'political'. Another part is to conserve energy in general. Then there is developing alternative energy sources, carbon tax, etc... but as you must know, a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere laugh at these solutions because they're too 'liberal'. There is no magic bullet-- if there were, it wouldn't be a problem.
Other organisms are NOT adapting... that's why AGW is such a huge problem.
I'm finding it increasingly harder to believe that you teach science. I mean, you're just throwing out all of the same talking points that the others do, with the same tone and the same overall conclusion. Now you're 'questioning the motivation', ie: hinting at a conspiracy.
So because the city-data forum puts these threads in the politics forum, it means that AGW isn't scientific? Are you seriously making this argument?
Another denier talking point.
You're not doing a very good job of hiding your bias.
I've already pointed out why the argument is false. Just because I call you a denier doesn't mean I feel in any way threatened by your position or am in any way misunderstanding you. Your position isn't complicated, original, unique or even very interesting. It's not as bad as 'Al Gore is trying to rule the world by imposing a carbon tax on hardworking Americans' (though you have hinted at conspiracy ideation here), but it's still not giving me the impression that your understanding of the issue is as comprehensive as you probably think it is.
You haven't said that man was not at fault, but you have downplayed the human role in it all, which is all too familiar and is just one of the many wrongheaded positions that has been spread in order to confuse the facts. People like you tend to come onto these forums believing yourselves to be apolitical and 'above the lunacy', and then act with indignation when someone suggests that you're misinformed. Considering how malicious you were in your first post (something about people with a higher than double-digit IQ?), the idea that you can now pretend to have the high ground is typical, but extremely hypocritical.
If you're really interested in finding out more about the proposed solutions, the Internet is full of resources... I found this one in 30 seconds:
One thing's for sure, if people weren't adamant about making AGW a political topic as opposed to a legitimate concern, we would have more elected officials who were willing to take the steps we need to take, and that would slap people out of their stupor and force them to consider doing the same. As is, anyone who suggests we do something is branded a 'liberal' and nobody wants to waste their 'hard-earned tax dollars' on a 'hoax'... meaning thanks to the oil industry and its propaganda efforts, it's either do nothing or commit political suicide.
Not to repeat ourselves... But the solution you seem to favor, is it the carbon tax/carbon credit solution?
Just a 'thought': when noaa, scientific American, nada, and pretty much any source one identifies as 'credible' have article after article refuting themselves....
Just maybe nobody has a firm grasp on anything yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Converted physicist/climate change skeptic
