US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by rsementi

That home is walking distance to the beach on MV. MV as an island, has been naturally sinking for over 100 years. But if the fake predictions come true by 2050, then his home will be underwater. But he just spent over 11 million so I guess he really is not afraid of global cooling, oops, global warming, oops climate change, oops climate catastrophe, oops inconvenient reality...lol

Nope. Not by 2050. Maybe 2100.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/201...el-rise-island

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

The oil industry is nearly $2 trillion a year. Even if Al Gore made $1 billion off of his movie which is just a lie, it wouldn’t hold a candle to even a few hours of what the oil industry has at stake.

Why are you so willing to give big oil such a moral pass? Do you feel the same way about tobacco and big Pharma? Or have you spent your career being a shill for the oil industry?

The difference is the oil industry provides me with gallons of a magic liquid that gets me to work everyday by turning a key, and pushing a pedal.

So far global warmers have only given me more taxes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The difference is the oil industry provides me with gallons of a magic liquid that gets me to work everyday by turning a key, and pushing a pedal.

So far global warmers have only given me more taxes.

I have a standing offer for those who are opposed to carbon taxes. I will pay them for you on the condition that you confine your fossil fuel emissions to your home(s) and vehicle(s). In the meantime I will continue to willingly pay my carbon taxes.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The data you presented for Alameda is based a linear trend. Of course it shows no acceleration.

This data for Alameda is not from a NOAA site.


https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...alca/index.php

It is beyond idiocy to describe any natural phenomenon as "exponential".

For exponential heating, or melting you would need an exponential increase in energy like a nuclear bomb.

I guarantee you the sun's output has in no way "increased exponentially".

And even if the Earth magically went from retaining 30% of sunlight to 100%, that isn't even an order of magnitude, let alone "exponential".

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by lestersails

ROFL!!! Let's see -
All US Government funding in 2017 for Climate Science $13B
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223

Exxon Mobil profit 2017 $19.7B
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223

That is only one oil company. Ignores all other oil companies. Ignores coal mining companies, natural gas drillers, pipeline distributors, on and on and on it goes.

So if you believe what you say and can follow a logical train of thought, you would conclude that it is the fossil fuel industry money that is distorting the agenda.
But no, just another pathetic, flimsy argument by a denier shot down without even trying very hard.
Seriously?



If your mirror is broken, I'll spring for a new one for you!

You are comparing "profit" to propaganda.

If there is a more apples to oranges comparison, I can't think of one.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have a standing offer for those who are opposed to carbon taxes. I will pay them for you on the condition that you confine your fossil fuel emissions to your home(s) and vehicle(s). In the meantime I will continue to willingly pay my carbon taxes.

I've got a better offer. I'll pay YOURS as soon as you provide proof those taxes paid so far have lowered atmospheric Co2.

And proof of what constitutes "optimum" Co2 levels.

We are at 400 parts per million, and global extinction occurs at 200 Parts per million, (Plants die).

In the recent past levels have been as high as 5,000 parts per million.

Humans can't live over 30,000 parts per million.

If humans are the primary source of Co2, we would have to increase mining coal, and drilling for oil several orders of magnitude to reach those levels.

The obvious solution is to use nuclear power for most of our energy. But the people most invested in the Global warming dogma hate nuclear even more than they hate coal.

Why?

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The data you presented for Alameda is based a linear trend. Of course it shows no acceleration.

This data for Alameda is not from a NOAA site.



https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...alca/index.php

Your response destroys my faith in real science.

The linear line is not the raw data. The raw data end in 2020 at the same level as they started in 1970. My trained eyeball sees that the raw data do not support acceleration, and I used to get paid for fitting lines to data. Point me to the raw data in spreadsheet form (ALL the raw data, not just the massaged and cherry picked data) and I will prove to you that the emperor has no clothes. Someone was given a grant to show that the tide levels are accelerating.

I further note that NOAA's 2022 projections show a high case level rise at Alameda of 1 ft, compared to the 2 ft in their 2017 projections.

BTW even your accelerating curve predicts lower water levels in 2050 than the decadal average for 1982. Let the climate change ideologists think about that for a moment.

[capn_billl]

Well I hope this is right.

Another 12 inches of sea level means I can go through my favorite channels without running aground.

[Ericson38]

1 inch of fresh water over 1 square mile = 73,000 tons
# of sq miles of total ocean = 139,000,000
weight of 1 inch of fresh water over all oceans combined = 1.0147E13 tons

Amount of silt out of Mississippi (dirt) into Gulf = 550,000,000 tons per year
Scale up to total runoff into oceans (~ 50 Mississippi Rivers) per year = 2.75 E10 tons
Number of years to get that mass to be same as mass of 1 inch of ocean = 368 years


No accounting here for fresh-salt specific gravity differences, or dirt to water volume differences per unit mass.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

1 inch of fresh water over 1 square mile = 73,000 tons
# of sq miles of total ocean = 139,000,000
weight of 1 inch of fresh water over all oceans combined = 1.0147E13 tons

Amount of silt out of Mississippi (dirt) into Gulf = 550,000,000 tons per year
Scale up to total runoff into oceans (~ 50 Mississippi Rivers) per year = 2.75 E10 tons
Number of years to get that mass to be same as mass of 1 inch of ocean = 368 years

No accounting here for fresh-salt specific gravity differences, or dirt to water volume differences per unit mass.

Did you not also account for moonbeams and auras? Could have a big effect - never been shown not to, right?

[lestersails]

And don't forget - we are after all in the Age of Aquarius. Aquarius being the "water carrier" - so the astrologers knew it all along. Sea levels are rising because of astrology, not ACC.
Aren't you impressed - I did my research on the internet!

[conchaway]

I'm trying to care, but by then, I'll be in davy Jones' locker.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And don't forget - we are after all in the Age of Aquarius. Aquarius being the "water carrier" - so the astrologers knew it all along. Sea levels are rising because of astrology, not ACC.
Aren't you impressed - I did my research on the internet!

This reference is what I was looking for-

https://earthscience.stackexchange.c...ent-deposition

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

It is beyond idiocy to describe any natural phenomenon as "exponential".

For exponential heating, or melting you would need an exponential increase in energy like a nuclear bomb.

I guarantee you the sun's output has in no way "increased exponentially".

And even if the Earth magically went from retaining 30% of sunlight to 100%, that isn't even an order of magnitude, let alone "exponential".

The sun's out put is in decline - one of the reasons we know it has little to with current climate change.



The temperature record, based on 692 data sets from 648 locations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

global extinction occurs at 200 Parts per million, (Plants die).

Bull do do CO2 levels reached 180 ppm at least 6 time sover the 800,000 years and plants survived.