US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

And, our climate is not cooling.

In fact we are now warmer than the past 24,000 years.



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Read my post again the reason is in black and white . His specialty is physics and specificly spectroscopy.

So you apparently say the reason he is to be believed is his pedigree? How about all the scientists on the other side, their pedigree have no sway with you?

What I asked for was the scientific basis for his belief. I think you believe solely because it reinforces your views, not because it is well documented as why he believes what he does. I did a little reading on his views, I'm very open to reading all viewpoints.

Here is the transcript (I don't think was an actual oral interview) of an interview in 2016. He puts forth lots of information without much actual detail (but it was an interview not a paper). Not to pick on one point, but most of his view seems to be the measured the measured temperature data doesn't match the climate models. He specifically cites the RSS satellite data as not showing any sustained warming. The current RSS data (attached) shows .214C/decade, which is not consistent with his argument in 2016. He further quotes Spencer's data, which after Spencer corrected his data, now shows warming at .13C. Neither of these are consistent with Happer's theory that the maximum is .5C change for a doubling of CO2.

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/...lobal-warming/

[Bycrick]

In fact we are now warmer than the past 24,000 years.

Another nonsense factoid. We’re we better off when Chicago was under a mile of ice? Maybe. Or when the Black Sea was an open grassland? Or the Russians could walk if they decided to invade Alaska?

So what if the climate has changed over 25000 years? Do you seriously expect that things will never change because we humans find change inconvenient? Do you really believe that if we just create stacks of science papers and issue mandates that we will "stop climate change?"

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

In fact we are now warmer than the past 24,000 years.

Another nonsense factoid. We’re we better off when Chicago was under a mile of ice? Maybe. Or when the Black Sea was an open grassland? Or the Russians could walk if they decided to invade Alaska?

So what if the climate has changed over 25000 years? Do you seriously expect that things will never change because we humans find change inconvenient? Do you really believe that if we just create stacks of science papers and issue mandates that we will "stop climate change?"

But of course.. a study will soon appear to prove it..

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Montanan

All glaciers melt, but when they recede. i.e., where they are melting, their coldness resource recedes further up the mountain valleys and the water has further to travel and warm, hence downstream there is warming of both the water resource and the air.

The further water flows downhill the more it warms.

As one approaches one of the glaciers one feels the coldness of the air falling down the valley, proximity to the ice is very noticeable. Once one hikes a mile or two away, the coolness is modest.

Not unlike the snowfield effects.

One has to think through the consequence, it is multivariate.

Nice try, but quit dancing on the table and admit you were wrong. Your original statement was
I live about 50 miles south of Glacier National Park and have seen the continuing receding of the glaciers and the effect of such loss of cold water flow on the streams, river and lakes.
.

When a glacier is receding, it produces MORE cold water, not less. Period, end of sentence.

Then you follow it up with The further water flows downhill the more it warms. This is a statement like "The more fossil fuel you burn, the warmer the planet gets".

I suppose you never swam in snow melt, which will shrivel your gonads 50 miles from the snow pack it originated from. The argument is not whether the planet will get warm, it is HOW MUCH.

[jackdale]

A lengthy, detailed refutation of Happer's assertions:

Synopsis
Happer argues that the current concern over human-caused greenhouse gases is overblown.
Although he clearly understands basic climate science, his presentation includes claims that are
exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change. His presentation
is entertaining, but he argues in many places against claims that climate scientists do not make.
He acknowledges that CO2 has an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is
small. Yet he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific understanding on
the response of climate system to CO2 (the “climate sensitivity”) is wrong, other than to say that
he does not trust climate models. His claims that climate models do not work are exaggerated
and misleading. He also claims that increased CO2 will be beneficial by increasing plant growth
– it is true that plant growth will increase by the CO2 increase alone, but he does not show that it
will be beneficial, especially when climate is changing at the same time as CO2. His presentation
ignores the large number of studies available that show that through climate change, CO2 will be
detrimental to agricultural productivity as well as to human well-being generally.
Since Happer has been giving similar lectures elsewhere, I was motivated to respond with what
current science shows regarding his arguments – to encourage those who agree with Happer to
consider what climate science tells us, and to give a stronger basis for those who agree with the
scientific consensus on climate change to respond to his arguments.

https://west.web.unc.edu/wp-content/...seToHapper.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So what if the climate has changed over 25000 years? Do you seriously expect that things will never change because we humans find change inconvenient? Do you really believe that if we just create stacks of science papers and issue mandates that we will "stop climate change?"

The current climate change can only be explained by human activities. Natural forcings would have us cooling. We are warming as a result of 1.5 trillion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 following the the Industrial Revolution which effected a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Nice try, but quit dancing on the table and admit you were wrong. Your original statement was
I live about 50 miles south of Glacier National Park and have seen the continuing receding of the glaciers and the effect of such loss of cold water flow on the streams, river and lakes..

When a glacier is receding, it produces MORE cold water, not less. Period, end of sentence.

What about direct evaporation, flow into depleted water tables, diversion to agriculture, etc? Heard about a drought? You have zero idea what Montanan has seen or not.

Then you follow it up with The further water flows downhill the more it warms. This is a statement like "The more fossil fuel you burn, the warmer the planet gets".

I suppose you never swam in snow melt, which will shrivel your gonads 50 miles from the snow pack it originated from. The argument is not whether the planet will get warm, it is HOW MUCH.

If this is the calibre of "scientific debate" on CF, whew.

[conchaway]

The matter, as usual, has a simple solution which, unfortunately, will not be folowed: For every living organism on the planet, there is a "carrying capacity"--a given amount of land can support only so many of any plant or animal.
If you exceed this, increasingly negative things begin to happen to the ecosystem, until there is a massive die-off, many times to extinction.
This planet is WAY over the "carrying capacity" for people. We are now increasingly seeing the results.
It's a shame, especially producing more people is easily preventable.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by conchaway

The matter, as usual, has a simple solution which, unfortunately, will not be folowed: For every living organism on the planet, there is a "carrying capacity"--a given amount of land can support only so many of any plant or animal.
If you exceed this, increasingly negative things begin to happen to the ecosystem, until there is a massive die-off, many times to extinction.
This planet is WAY over the "carrying capacity" for people. We are now increasingly seeing the results.
It's a shame, especially producing more people is easily preventable.

The population growth rate has declined from 2.1% in the 1960 to just over 1% today.

The issue is consumption and the revolution of rising expectations. The rest of the world knows how we live.

[Bycrick]

"The argument is not whether the planet will get warm, it is HOW MUCH."

And that’s not going to be determined by a bunch of "scientists" gathering at midnight to run their fingers through goat entrails or sophisticated models.

If the West has a drought, then one doesn’t look for "root causes" that one might solve in a hundred years. You address water use next week.

If houses are being built in undeveloped grasslands and thus burned down when the grasslands burn, as they have for thousands of years, you stop people from building homes in these undeveloped areas. You don’t try and find a solution that takes decades to implement.

Just like the people in the Midwest or the Sacramento delta who kept rebuilding their homes in flood plains. You eliminate "flood insurance" and get them to build someplace else. You don’t spend billions of dollars on dikes or hare-brained schemes to change the weather.

If sea level is rising, you move people away from the sea. You don’t give them buckets and teaspoons. You don’t spend trillions of dollars getting rid of fossil fuels so that maybe you’ll stop the rise in a century.

[Bycrick]

"The issue is consumption and the revolution of rising expectations. The rest of the world knows how we live."

Absolutely true. The problem though is that the people who have improved their lifestyle, even a little bit, still want more. And they’re unlikely to vote for schemes that tell them to cut back and go back to what they fought so hard to escape. Especially when those schemes are being driven by a bunch of rich, privileged foreigners who have a lifestyle beyond the worldwide many's wildest dreams.

Bringing them up to current first-world levels is impractical and taking away what they’ve got to avoid projected problems decades down the road is politically impossible.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I know I shouldn't have to point this out but fish are not animals.

Deleted I see this mistyped verbiage was addressed upstream

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So what if the climate has changed over 25000 years? Do you seriously expect that things will never change because we humans find change inconvenient? Do you really believe that if we just create stacks of science papers and issue mandates that we will "stop climate change?"

Agreed. There is no issue with the climate changing. The issue is "rate of climate change" which is more than 100 times faster than natural cycles. This is too fast to adapt to. Why do you keep repeating the same flawed argument that has nothing to do with reality? 100 times faster is catastrophic. Try sailing your boat into a steel post at 0.2 knots vs 20 knots and compare the results.

Reducing our emissions to 1% of current levels would not pose a serious threat over long periods of time despite rising levels of co2. it would be enough for emergency services, and would last 50,000 years and be sufficient to produce some synthetic materials such as sails. ecosystems would migrate and adapt as they have throughout history without causing a mass extinction event.

It would not be enough to support car-based society be it electric or conventional. Not enough to have air travel with jet engines. Would not be enough to feed everyone twice what they need causing health problems while also wasting half the food produced. It would not be enough for recreational activities such as boating to use diesel engines and so on.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So what if the climate has changed over 25000 years? Do you seriously expect that things will never change because we humans find change inconvenient? Do you really believe that if we just create stacks of science papers and issue mandates that we will "stop climate change?"

Agreed. There is no issue with the climate changing. The issue is "rate of climate change" which is more than 100 times faster than natural cycles. This is too fast to adapt to. Why do you keep repeating the same flawed argument that has nothing to do with reality? 100 times faster is catastrophic. Try sailing your boat into a concrete wall at 0.2 knots vs 20 knots and compare the results.

Reducing our emissions to 1% of current levels would not pose a serious threat over long periods of time despite rising levels of co2. it would be enough for emergency services, and would last 50,000 years and be sufficient to produce some synthetic materials such as sails. ecosystems would migrate and adapt as they have throughout history without causing a mass extinction event.

It would not be enough to support car-based society be it electric or conventional. Not enough to have air travel with jet engines. Would not be enough to feed everyone twice what they need causing health problems while also wasting half the food produced. It would not be enough for recreational activities such as boating to use diesel engines and so on.