Climate change “not as bad as they thought”

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I thought you were leaving? 

Cue ZamBRO: Is this Neal? 

LOOK NEAL!  Your sheepdog is here....and i don't give a fuck.....He'll die just before you!  But I won't eat him. 

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

I didn't say mankind was the sole orchestration of it.

You don't see because you choose to be blind.

Neal

VORTEX!  I hope your job is like an A then B then C...repeat type deal.  you should not be thinking on your feet at all....and certainly shouldn't be verbally communicating your thoughts out loud.

NOW:

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Zambroski said:

LOOK NEAL!  Your sheepdog is here....and i don't give a fuck.....He'll die just before you!  But I won't eat him. 

VORTEX!  I hope your job is like an A then B then C...repeat type deal.  you should not be thinking on your feet at all....and certainly shouldn't be verbally communicating your thoughts out loud.

NOW:

 

It’s not complicated if you took three seconds to read what we’ve been writing.... Be better. 

[NaturallyAspirated]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

LOOK NEAL!  Your sheepdog is here....and i don't give a fuck.....He'll die just before you!  But I won't eat him. 

VORTEX!  I hope your job is like an A then B then C...repeat type deal.  you should not be thinking on your feet at all....and certainly shouldn't be verbally communicating your thoughts out loud.

NOW:

 

Can't discuss the topic so you have to harass the debaters.  Typical small mind thinking.  I pity you.  

Neal

[Anler]

Listen you fucking assholes! So what "climate change" isnt what they said it was. We treat the earth like a fucking toilet and its disgusting and not healthy. Just fucking stop being a nigger and promoting nigger behavior. 

 

 

[Highmark]

3 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Or her model could be wrong and we will warm at twice the rate she published! 

Neal

Funny how none of the "models" ever seem to be true.    

I find it interesting when it comes to local weather the meteorologist always talk about the different computer models.  European and whatever.   Seems to me they don't often agree with one another when predicting weather a day from now over a much smaller area than globally.  Now we are suppose to believe in the accuracy of global warming models trying to predict what will happen all over the earth decades from now.   Science fiction is a more accurate description.   

Edited April 26, 2018 by Highmark

[revkevsdi]

Express uk.  That’s a science mag if I ever saw one. 

[revkevsdi]

2 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

This is the supreme logical fallacy of the debate. It’s what the deniers thrive off of. A critical misunderstanding of the scientific process. Devoid of critical thought and simple comprehension of the problem(s) being discussed. 

It was cold this year. Looks like GW is a sham. Whoops, no hurricanes this year, must be made up. 99% of deniers can’t even define climate. They interchange it with weather like they are one in the same.

I’ve never tried tried to look it up. But most of those 10 year models would have been based on us continuing to pollute.  China slowed down their emissions if they are to be believed.  Logically that  would throw off the models accuracy. 

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Funny how none of the "models" ever seem to be true.    

I find it interesting when it comes to local weather the meteorologist always talk about the different computer models.  European and whatever.   Seems to me they don't often agree with one another when predicting weather a day from now over a much smaller area than globally.  Now we are suppose to believe in the accuracy of global warming models trying to predict what will happen all over the earth decades from now.   Science fiction is a more accurate description.   

Exhibit A of not knowing that there is a difference between weather and climate. “Well they can’t get my weather right, how can they get climate?!” Yeah, cause day to day weather which is impacted by an infinite number of variables over a short run is a good indicator of a long run averages that make up climate [sarcasm]. You’re not serious are you? This is why kids should get science classes... 

Edited April 26, 2018 by xtralettucetomatoe580

[SnowRider]

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Exhibit A of not knowing that there is a difference between weather and climate. “Well they can’t get my weather right, how can they get climate?!” Yeah, cause day to day weather which is impacted by an infinite number of variables over a short run is a good indicator of a long run averages that make up climate [sarcasm]. You’re not serious are you? This is why kids should get science classes... 

Skidmark is serious.....you know.....I ate today so there is no world hunger 

[washedupmxer]

6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Exhibit A of not knowing that there is a difference between weather and climate. “Well they can’t get my weather right, how can they get climate?!” Yeah, cause day to day weather which is impacted by an infinite number of variables over a short run is a good indicator of a long run averages that make up climate [sarcasm]. You’re not serious are you? This is why kids should get science classes... 

He makes an accurate point that when they can't get weather models right what makes them think they can predict climate years out

[jtssrx]

2 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

The other side has do the same with big energy and money.  It isn't a one sided issue.

Neal

Bullshit producing energy for coming consumption isn’t the same thing.

 

The only reason anyone would have to study climate change for the purpose of saying it’s not man made is combat the idiots that want to shut down energy production. Less not forget the fact that the  people trying to shut down fossil fuel production are heavily invested in solor wind and other alternatives

[jtssrx]

18 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Exhibit A of not knowing that there is a difference between weather and climate. “Well they can’t get my weather right, how can they get climate?!” Yeah, cause day to day weather which is impacted by an infinite number of variables over a short run is a good indicator of a long run averages that make up climate [sarcasm]. You’re not serious are you? This is why kids should get science classes... 

No he’s not using this as sn exsample of climate. It’s an exsample of how flawed models are. 

Point being models for current weather can’t predict anything with accuracy so how could anyone ever believe long term models. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

20 minutes ago, washedupmxer said:

He makes an accurate point that when they can't get weather models right what makes them think they can predict climate years out

No he doesn’t make an accurate point. Weather models are trying to guess day to day fluctuations. Climate models are judging how an average trend will fluctuate. Key word here is average. It doesn’t have the volatility of day to day.

6 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

No he’s not using this as sn exsample of climate. It’s an exsample of how flawed models are. 

Point being models for current weather can’t predict anything with accuracy so how could anyone ever believe long term models. 

So one model for a completely different measurement and time span should invalidate another model not even based on the same parameters? Do you realize how flawed this logic is? This is like saying I didn’t catch a fish on the lake today, therefore there are no fish in the United States... 

[Momorider]

25 minutes ago, washedupmxer said:

He makes an accurate point that when they can't get weather models right what makes them think they can predict climate years out

More than 3 days out is a flip of the coin  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

And if your point is models are bad indicators of future expectations then you better have correlating data showing a reasonable empirical deficiency of all models to the actual data collected. It’s just a foolish and ignorant statement to make based not in fact but opinion skewed by misinformation and lack of scientific process understanding.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Momorider said:

More than 3 days out is a flip of the coin  

Well duh. There are an infinite number of variables that impact weather. The collection of those variables over a span of a decade or more, however, is fairly accurate (that’s climate). Enough so that models accounting for increases to one or more of those variables can be an indicator of future climate variation. 

[Momorider]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

And if your point is models are bad indicators of future expectations then you better have correlating data showing a reasonable empirical deficiency of all models to the actual data collected. It’s just a foolish and ignorant statement to make based not in fact but opinion skewed by misinformation and lack of scientific process understanding.

Most are just being very skeptical cuz basically everything in "An inconvenient Truth" was none has came true  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Momorider said:

Most are just being very skeptical cuz basically everything in "An inconvenient Truth" was none has came true  

That’s because it was propaganda bullshit and based on fear over fact. If you ask most climate scientists what to expect in 10, 20, 50 years, they will shrug and say the trend is warming, but to know exactly what the impact is impossible. 

[jtssrx]

6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

No he doesn’t make an accurate point. Weather models are trying to guess day to day fluctuations. Climate models are judging how an average trend will fluctuate. Key word here is average. It doesn’t have the volatility of day to day.

So one model for a completely different measurement and time span should invalidate another model not even based on the same parameters? Do you realize how flawed this logic is? This is like saying I didn’t catch a fish on the lake today, therefore there are no fish in the United States... 

Just curious if I say black will you say white and then go on a diatribe about how stupid I am for saying black??

 

i mean are you the only person that’s aloud to have an opinion or thought on this board??

[Momorider]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That’s because it was propaganda bullshit and based on fear over fact. If you ask most climate scientists what to expect in 10, 20, 50 years, they will shrug and say the trend is warming, but to know exactly what the impact is impossible. 

But lets invest  hundreds of Billions stifle our economies and all sign onto an accord to restrict the rise in the global temperature by 1.5 degrees, GOOD IDEA   even though we don't have a fucking clue how to do that 

[Mileage Psycho]

5 hours ago, Highmark said:

Well I guess Florida will only be covered by 3 ft of water instead of 6.     Oh wait that never happened either.  

Nothing to worry about  

Quote

 

The military paid for a study on sea level rise. The results were scary.

More than a thousand low-lying tropical islands risk becoming “uninhabitable” by the middle of the century — or possibly sooner — because of rising sea levels, upending the populations of some island nations and endangering key U.S. military assets, according to new research published Wednesday.

The threats to the islands are twofold. In the long term, the rising seas threaten to inundate the islands entirely. More immediately, as seas rise, the islands will more frequently deal with large waves that crash farther onto the shore, contaminating their drinkable water supplies with ocean saltwater, according to the research.

The islands face climate-change-driven threats to their water supplies “in the very near future,” according to the study, published in the journal Science Advances.

The study focused on a part of the Marshall Islands in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Hilda Heine, president of the Marshall Islands, said in an interview that Wednesday’s journal article “brings home the seriousness” of the predicament facing her island nation.

“It’s a scary scenario for us,” she said.

The research also has ramifications for the U.S. military, whose massive Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site sits, in part, on the atoll island of Roi-Namur — a part of the Marshall Islands and the focus of the research.

The U.S. military supported the research in part to learn about the vulnerability of its tropical-island installations. The Pentagon base on Roi-Namur and surrounding islands supports about 1,250 American civilians, contractors and military personnel.

“This study provided a better understanding of how atoll islands may be affected by a changing climate,” Defense Department spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement. “While no decisions have been made about Department of Defense activities on the islands based on the study, DOD continues to focus on ensuring its installations and infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of threats. The department’s understanding of rising sea levels will enable the military services and agencies in affected areas to make informed decisions on how to continue to execute their missions.”

The low-lying island, which rises barely six feet above the current sea level, is part of the vast Kwajalein coral atoll, a structure that formed as coral reefs grew around a sinking volcanic island long ago. That is the origin of more than a thousand other low-lying, ring-shaped atoll islands or atoll island chains across the Pacific and Indian oceans. Most are not populated, but some, such as the Marshall Islands and Maldives, are home to tens or even hundreds of thousands.

While seas are rising by 3.2 millimeters per year at the moment and expected to rise even faster in years ahead, Roi-Namur has a good chance of avoiding total inundation this century.

But the new research — conducted by researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several other institutions in the United States, Monaco and the Netherlands — suggests that saltwater contamination of the island’s aquifers would probably occur at 40 centimeters (about 15 inches) of sea-level rise. A rise of five to six centimeters globally has already occurred since 2000, and the sea-level rise is even faster at the Kwajalein atoll.

The danger comes because of the increasing ability of large waves to spill across the island and sink into its groundwater.

“Historically, there would be an overwash event due to a cyclone or typhoon every 20 or 30 years,” said Curt Storlazzi, a USGS researcher who led the study. “Every 20 or 30 years or more, communities can recover in that time. The concern is that with sea-level rise, those flooding events are going to happen more frequently.”

Wave overwash events already occur — a 20-foot-high wave swept across Roi-Namur in 2014 — but the computer model used by the study finds that they become more likely as seas rise, and once they occur two years in a row, the groundwater could become undrinkable.

The “tipping point” in the study varies depending upon the rate of climate change — and above all the stability of Antarctica. In the worst case, the paper says, it could come “before 2030.” However, a prominent expert in sea-level rise who was not involved in the study, Bob Kopp of Rutgers University, questioned that especially dire finding.

“They’re asking the right questions, they’re doing the right sorts of analysis, but I’m a little skeptical of some of their early-century dates for some things,” Kopp said in an interview with The Washington Post.

For less dire scenarios, the critical moment is pushed further off to the decade between 2030 and 2040 for a high warming scenario without Antarctic collapse, or 2055 to 2065 for a middle-range warming scenario. Kopp said that middle scenario is consistent with what is known and provided an analysis suggesting that while there is indeed a major threat, it won’t arrive as soon as 2030 but could by the 2050s.

“Even if you take their most conservative scenario, the numbers are really disturbing,” Kopp said. “And there’s nothing wrong with their conservative scenario.”

Storlazzi said that, if anything, Roi-Namur is probably somewhat higher in elevation than many other coral atoll islands. Hence the conclusion that so many of them could be at risk — the study says that “most” are — and that the occupied ones might also, in the relatively near future, have to worry about their drinking-water supplies.

The research was commissioned by the Pentagon’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and published in a more lengthy form earlier this year, in a report that partly focused on helping the military identify sites where its assets could be vulnerable.

There, the researchers called the inquiry on Roi-Namur a precursor to a comprehensive examination of numerous atoll islands managed by the Defense Department “that are most vulnerable to sea-level rise and associated impacts over the next 20 to 50 years.”

“If these impacts are not addressed or adequately planned for, as it becomes necessary to abandon or relocate island nations, significant geopolitical issues could arise,” they wrote.

The United States manages military installations or assets not only in the Marshall Islands but also on Wake Island, another Pacific atoll, and the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian Ocean. There are also decommissioned installations at the Midway and Johnston atolls.

John Conger, director of the Center for Climate and Security and former acting assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and the environment, said that the department “is increasingly cognizant of threat of sea-level rise on its installations.”

Part of the risk can be addressed by adaptive measures, he said, but that’s costly. He called the new study “a little bit jarring.”

“They are going to have to make some operational decisions,” Conger said. “This is sort of the front lines of sea-level rise and climate change. It’s not that the entire island is going underwater — it’s that you don’t have drinking water. It’s going to wreck the aquifer.”

Rising seas threaten even some projects that remain under construction.

Case in point: the $1 billion “Space Fence,” a radar installation on Kwajalein Atoll that is intended to track tens of thousands of pieces of space junk — some of them as small as a baseball — in an effort to keep orbiting satellites and astronauts safe. The state-of-the-art project is being constructed for the Air Force by Lockheed Martin and is supposed to be fully operational later this year.

But its location on the tiny atoll already has raised concerns that the site could face routine flooding threats within a matter of decades and that saltwater could damage its expensive equipment. 

The study underscores why many small island nations clamored to ensure that the 2015 Paris climate agreement included language requiring the world to strive to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, an extremely stringent target. Atoll-dependent nations that have been heavily involved in the push for climate action include the Marshall Islands, Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.

But with the planet already 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer, holding warming to 1.5 Celsius seems unlikely, because it would require extremely rapid shifts away from the current energy system toward renewables, rather than the more gradual change now underway.

The new study did not address specific Paris climate targets, but Kopp’s additional analysis found that even under a 2-degree or 1.5-degree Celsius climate scenario, by late in the century, more than 40 centimeters of sea-level rise will probably occur. Still, these scenarios would buy atoll islands some time.

“The research is a reminder of the immediate threat of sea-level rise,” said Simon Donner, a professor at the University of British Columbia who studies coral reefs and climate change and wrote a comment by email from Kiribati.

“It is also a reminder that the people in atoll countries, who are not responsible for climate change, are not receiving the necessary international support,” he continued. “Despite the dire findings of this study, adaptation is not absolutely impossible: the construction by China on atoll islands in the South China Sea is evidence of that. Adaptation is, however, prohibitively expensive for developing countries like Kiribati (where I am currently).”

Heine, the Marshall Islands president, said there is no ignoring the affects climate change already is having. Just last week, she said, waves washed over parts of the island nations, thanks to a combination of wind and ocean currents exacerbated by sea-level rise. Residents were left to clean up flooded roads and neighborhoods.

“It’s more of a nuisance than anything, but things like that are coming every other month or so,” she said. “It makes people feel insecure in their own homes.”

Her government is doing what it can to protect its vulnerable shorelines, building new sea walls with the limited resources it has. But it’s not nearly enough. And she has watched with exasperation as the United States has backed away from the Paris climate accord under President Trump, whose administration has scarcely acknowledged the looming threats posed by climate change.

“The leaders of the United States need to get on board. … We should stop denying what is happening and help vulnerable countries like ours,” Heine said. “It’s important for people in the U.S. to realize that this is real, it’s happening to people. We are not the ones creating this, but we are the ones who have to live with it.”

A critical issue for the islands in question is the fate of the coral reefs from which they are made and that surround them. Reefs break waves, helping to prevent overwash events, and they also grow to keep pace with sea-level rise — at least to an extent.

But even as seas are rising, coral reefs around the world have been suffering from severe bleaching events and are weakened further by acidifying oceans. This suggests that reefs could be hobbled and unable to protect their islands from waves.

“The coral reefs these days have suffered not only of sea-level rise but mostly in terms of acidification of the ocean and also increase of temperature,” said André Droxler, a geoscientist at Rice University who has studied how corals succumbed to fast-rising seas at the end of the last ice age. “So climate change will increase the rate of sea-level rise, but also it will decrease the possibility for these corals to keep up.”

The current study suggests that if reefs falter — as they are doing around the world — then the major wave risk to coral atoll islands could come still earlier.

Droxler said the study reminded him of Maldives, where he has worked and which faces a situation similar to that of the Marshall Islands. “The maximum elevation is 2.4 meters, and there are more than 140,000 people living in two square miles,” he said of the capital island of Male.

“It is kind of the ultimate example of the destiny of these tropical islands, which are so low in elevation,” Droxler said.

And each passing year, as seas continue to rise and the nations and the world wrestle with how to cut carbon dioxide emissions, thousands of islands grow closer to a reckoning.

“The longer we talk about this,” Conger said, “the more the distant future becomes the near future.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/25/climate-change-could-make-thousands-of-tropical-islands-uninhabitable-in-coming-decades-new-study-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe03b00e22d1

 

 

[Mileage Psycho]

5 hours ago, Highmark said:

Well I guess Florida will only be covered by 3 ft of water instead of 6.     Oh wait that never happened either.  

Again no worries, the realtors say it's not problem and of course we know how honest RE brokers are  

Quote

 

The risk of sea level rise is chipping away at Miami home values, new research shows

BY ALEX HARRIS

aharris@miamiherald.com

April 24, 2018 06:01 PM

Updated 4 hours 44 minutes ago

Creeping flood waters driven by sea rise have yet to reach the doors of most homes in Miami-Dade, but research shows the looming threat from climate change is already affecting their value. And not in a good way.
 

New data from Harvard University and the University of Colorado suggests that homes in lower elevations are selling for less and gaining value slower than similar ones at higher elevations. Researchers see that as sign that some buyers are factoring climate risks into their offers and investments — a trend that could have major implications for a state with more coastal real estate at risk than any other.

Miami's real estate professionals, however, are skeptical of the climate ripple effect, pointing out the continued soaring prices of expensive waterfront in places like Miami Beach and Key Biscayne. They say their buyers are more concerned with nearby schools and taxes than whether their property will be underwater in 50 or 100 years.

“I’m not hearing it. My associates aren’t hearing it. My realtors aren’t hearing it. It’s not a huge, deep concern from the public,” said Coral Gables realtor Christopher Zoller. “Yeah people talk about it, but has it prevented them from making a purchase? No.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/real-estate/article209611439.html

 

 

[Rod]

6 hours ago, Edmo said:

“The science is settled”

oops

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet/amp

It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.

But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.

The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.

It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016.

It forecast that future warming will be between 30 per cent and 45 per cent lower than suggested by simulations carried out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel one Climate Change.

 

 

So Manhattan won’t be under water by 2011?

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 hour ago, jtssrx said:

Just curious if I say black will you say white and then go on a diatribe about how stupid I am for saying black??

 

i mean are you the only person that’s aloud to have an opinion or thought on this board??

No, but if your opinion and knowledge on the subject are at a third grade level and you want to sit and call people retards and act like you have a clue when you don’t, then expect to have someone tell you that you’re fucking wrong. If that hurts your feelings, why don’t you stop being such a victim pussy and deal with it? K? Thanks. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

And I’m going to apologize to third graders. Even they understand the basics of the scientific process.