OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[X(]

"at a minimum exaggerated and at a maximum simply wrong", but yet NASA disagrees. Sorry CR, but it's a hard job proving NASA wrong. They're not infallible, so feel free to prove them wrong.

The section on the ice sheet mass should put to flight any doubts you have over conflicting reports of ice sheet melting. Yearly fluctuations happen, but the general trend has been downwards.

[Canoerebel]

The majority decides what is orthodox and what isn't, decides what is misinformation and what isn't, determines who is giving misinformation, and gets to suppress anything it disagrees with. [X(]

[Canoerebel]

Cult-like

[Canoerebel]

Group-think

[mind_messing]

I'd like to put the ball in your court, CR.

I've gave you the link to NASA's site on climate change, which provides evidence that climate change is a genuine issue.

I'd like you to respond with evidence supporting your own views that "anthropogenic global warming is at a minimum exaggerated and at a maximum simply wrong".

This is not a personal attack. This is not an attempt to insult your person in any ways. I do not want you to feel that you are being in any way, shape or form the victim of a personal attack from me for failing to conform to the group norm. That's not what's happening here.

What I would like from you is to give me some supporting evidence to your statements, so that I can interact with the evidence base of the opposing viewpoint.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, MindMessing. That's the kind of offer that leads to good faith discussion and interplay.

I won't go down that road, however. I know why you (and global warming scientists) believe as they do. I'm not going to change your mind. By the same token, I've looked into this carefully. It would take us thousands or words and countless hours to adequately address the issues here.

I respect the intelligence and passion of the global warming folks. The point I wanted to make here was that too many of them don't reciprocate.

This is a thorny isssue and environment that is more likely to breed ill-will than good will, so I'll bow out.

But thanks, Mind Messing. I really appreciate your approach.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd like to put the ball in your court, CR.

I've gave you the link to NASA's site on climate change, which provides evidence that climate change is a genuine issue.

I'd like you to respond with evidence supporting your own views that "anthropogenic global warming is at a minimum exaggerated and at a maximum simply wrong".

This is not a personal attack. This is not an attempt to insult your person in any ways. I do not want you to feel that you are being in any way, shape or form the victim of a personal attack from me for failing to conform to the group norm. That's not what's happening here.

What I would like from you is to give me some supporting evidence to your statements, so that I can interact with the evidence base of the opposing viewpoint.

+1 Well put

[joliverlay]

https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/



Just curious. If sea level is indeed rising why is the land area of these islands increasing significantly over 40 years?

[Fishbed]

From the Stream (which describes itself as "The national daily championing freedom, smaller government and human dignity. The Stream offers a rich and lively source for breaking news, Christian inspiration and conservative commentary while challenging the worst in the mainstream media". Can't say readers aren't warned! [;)]) you can easily trace back the references they cooked in there. They didn't do it with the utmost unbiased agenda in mind, and you might have to read between the lines, but still they were honest enough to properly mention their references:

- Sea-level rising isn't rebuked. It is actually acknowledged in the article (read between the lines there again) and the papers that it quotes.
- Studies they quote (and they say so themselves) say human activity is the main factor of increase - that is land reclamation (a single project in south Tarawa accounting for 80% of the net change for instance). The Stream doesn't deny it, it just doesn't see fit to use numbers when it is of no use to its argumentation - but in the end they do acknowledge it like the rest:

The study determined that the vast majority of this increase was from human activities. For example, people have filled in marine areas with materials from nearby beaches and shore areas to create new land.

Which is all that was expected considering the international community has been pouring (or putting, that isn't that much at the end) a few millions in what is known as the Kiribati Adaptation Program funded through the World Bank for more than 15 years. Some would say it's a clever plot by neighbouring countries (and the Kiribati government) who have no wish to find themselves with Kiribati climate refugees all over the place, but the result is here: Kiribati is using the money for what it is stamped for, and the islands are more sustainable now, more durable, and actually larger. In my view, the fact the Stream didn't care to mention the program its dear taxpayers are funding is probably the most questionable aspect of the article, but again it doesn't make it untrue. Just biased (but that's what opinion pieces are for).

Besides, studies also show that water rising isn't working like it does in a bathtub. Coral reefs, mangroves and coastal specific cases show that it is distributed differently and the coastline shows some striking, unexpected ways of coping with it. The effect of water rising is disruptive, but depends on what it meets on its way there. Doesn't mean water isn't rising - just means that it's not rising like water rises in a glass, overall erosion isn't as smooth or predictable a process as we thought it was. Simply put, it's not just a question of how many millimeters - but then again atolls are rather special things way more complicated than they seem.

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn



Prof. Sledge had one the best understanding of climate change I've heard from anyone.

"Asphalt... keeps the freshness in."

My civil engineering class in the 90s proudly wore shirts with the slogan "save the world, encase it in concrete" with a picture of the globe in a test cube of the good stuff...
They probably don't sell many of those shirts anymore!

[tarkalak]

I like this explanation.



I guess I have to write in my will that my grandkids take the real world data and compare it with the current prognosis.[:'(]

[MakeeLearn]

...

[mind_messing]

I'm interested to see if the Dutch share the same hubris as demonstrated in this thread. I somehow doubt it.

[MakeeLearn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5VmVvsjyKw
If it keeps on rainin', levee's goin' to break
And the water gonna come in, have no place to stay
Well all last night I sat on the levee and moan
Thinkin' 'bout my baby and my happy home
If it keeps on rainin', levee's goin' to break
And all these people have no place to stay
Now look here mama what am I to do
I ain't got nobody to tell my troubles to
I works on the levee mama both night and day
I ain't got nobody, keep the water away
Oh cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do no good
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move
I works on the levee, mama both night and day
I works so hard, to keep the water away
I had a woman, she wouldn't do for me
I'm goin' back to my used to be
I's a mean old levee, cause me to weep and moan
Gonna leave my baby, and my happy home

[danlongman]

As a person who lurks these boards I can tell you that based on past conversations
in unrelated topics I can guess which side of the climate change issue a given member
will be on. Sometimes even their stage name tells me.
I worked for more than thirty years in the field of aviation weather and my degree is
in Meteorology and my minor was Climatology.

I find to my dismay that far too many people base their "scientific" argument solely in right
wing politics. They never admit it and pretend to have carefully considered the issue.
The arguments used in poo pooing the science and the talking points presented
have been proven spurious over and over again but are very popular among the only block
of humans who refuse to accept this science. An amazing number are Trump supporters.
It comes with the territory. You know that when your thinking on Earth Science lines
up with the American Mussolini, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and the band of felons
in Washington you are not thinking much... just parroting misinformation. You may wish to
reconsider where you get your "factoids".

It is the Dunning Kruger and Confirmation Bias demons that plague us in every field of
endeavor. It is a familiar feeling reading the smug and lofty way the science deniers
repeat talking points that were discarded by science decades ago. The baseless claims and
wild conspiracy theories suggest these people have no idea now science works. The sad fact
is that a person demonstrates their ignorance on the topic to a professional - usually in
their first statement.
The Right wing energy industry propaganda is rubbish and those repeating it are unknowingly
making complete fools of themselves in public.
My turn to be smug here but in the same way that I could never convince an electrical
engineer that I am one also people who are ignorant of climate and weather demonstrate
it to a professional immediately. The talking points used are all the same and are based
in politics not science. They instantly mark people who do not know what they are talking
about and do not even understand they have been lied to and are propagating those same
lies - ignorantly supporting the people with vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

This is not rocket science. Weather and Climate are two different things as are Science
and Politics. Think Chamberlain in Munich and how he was manipulated by the bad guys.
Disinformation is all the rage these days. Fact check your opinions... they are not science.
It is always a good idea to know if you actually are right or wrong before advertising
the fact that you learned your science from Ken Hamm, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones.

I forgot to mention that George Soros came over to my house last night and gave me a
paper bag full of money like he does every week. He pays me and all the other scientists
to spread alarmist crap everywhere. He is actually paying for climate change.

[MBF]

@danglongman ++1

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

As a person who lurks these boards I can tell you that based on past conversations
in unrelated topics I can guess which side of the climate change issue a given member
will be on. Sometimes even their stage name tells me.
I worked for more than thirty years in the field of aviation weather and my degree is
in Meteorology and my minor was Climatology.

I find to my dismay that far too many people base their "scientific" argument solely in right
wing politics. They never admit it and pretend to have carefully considered the issue.
The arguments used in poo pooing the science and the talking points presented
have been proven spurious over and over again but are very popular among the only block
of humans who refuse to accept this science. An amazing number are Trump supporters.
It comes with the territory. You know that when your thinking on Earth Science lines
up with the American Mussolini, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and the band of felons
in Washington you are not thinking much... just parroting misinformation. You may wish to
reconsider where you get your "factoids".

It is the Dunning Kruger and Confirmation Bias demons that plague us in every field of
endeavor. It is a familiar feeling reading the smug and lofty way the science deniers
repeat talking points that were discarded by science decades ago. The baseless claims and
wild conspiracy theories suggest these people have no idea now science works. The sad fact
is that a person demonstrates their ignorance on the topic to a professional - usually in
their first statement.
The Right wing energy industry propaganda is rubbish and those repeating it are unknowingly
making complete fools of themselves in public.
My turn to be smug here but in the same way that I could never convince an electrical
engineer that I am one also people who are ignorant of climate and weather demonstrate
it to a professional immediately. The talking points used are all the same and are based
in politics not science. They instantly mark people who do not know what they are talking
about and do not even understand they have been lied to and are propagating those same
lies - ignorantly supporting the people with vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

This is not rocket science. Weather and Climate are two different things as are Science
and Politics. Think Chamberlain in Munich and how he was manipulated by the bad guys.
Disinformation is all the rage these days. Fact check your opinions... they are not science.
It is always a good idea to know if you actually are right or wrong before advertising
the fact that you learned your science from Ken Hamm, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones.

Crying for understanding the "Embryonic Fluid" of this planet, the science needs... hmmm.... spiritual/Shamanistic sensitivities.
I see it in the birds every year. Like a increase in the "urgency". Especially in the groups of swallows that are near by.

Sledge could spend the entire hour of a class talking about just the effects of asphalt and cities.

[tarkalak]

If we have the ego to believe that the whole universe was created only and solely for us, and that its creator has no better job than to observe and judge every millisecond of our lives, than believing that we have a meaningful impact on the climate is not that hard, isn't it?

I do not argue that climate change doesn't happen. Climate has been changing since this planet got an atmosphere. But we do not have the energy output to rival any of the factors that shape it.

All the CO2 that we release was a part of the ecosystem.

I think that air pollution is a real and far more dangerous issue.

[spence]

danlogman +++1

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/



Just curious. If sea level is indeed rising why is the land area of these islands increasing significantly over 40 years?

As Alain-James responded in detail, but the succinct version is that the answer is the same as: why does Belgium have so much land that is below sea level?

Land reclamation.