Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
basilio said:
...Your accusing the whole climate science and related studies community of being corrupt and crazy.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of evidence suggesting that they do indeed merit such accusations.
 
What is the research and evidence to show that increases in temperatures in the poles will cause substantial ice melt and rising sea levels ?

[
B]Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Posted on 7 December 2012 by Rob Painting[/B]
Key points

An accurately dated, near-continuous, history of sea level variations for the last 150,000 years has been compiled.

Comparison with ice core data reveals that major global ice volume loss, as implied by sea level rise, has followed relatively quickly after polar warming. The Greenland ice sheet responding virtually straight away (0-100 years lag time), and a 400-700 lag for the Antarctic ice sheet.

These response times are much faster than was previously commonly suspected, and implies that once sufficient polar warming is underway, future ice sheet collapse may be unavoidable.

During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.

.....
Click to expand...


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pas...ests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html
 
And what does the most recent analysis of the Antarctic Ice sheets tell us about the risk of rapidly rising sea levels ?

Connecting Dots ”” The News in Perspective
Why the New Sea Level Alarm Can't Be Ignored

The physics of ice predicts that sea level will rise twice as much by the end of the century as previously estimated

PUBLISHED April 1, 2016

There are days when even a born optimist starts to waver in his conviction. The release of a new study projecting that sea level could rise between five and six feet by 2100””when many children born today will still be alive and have been forced to move inland””made Thursday one of those days
Click to expand...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/
 
basilio said:
Not impressed Wayne... Keep yourself nice..:frown:

I'll accept that you have strong environmental concerns. But that puzzles me even further because that suggest you read widely and are well capable of understanding complex ideas. And of course that you care.

And then we come to global warming and climate change... Somehow you manage to resolutely ignore every piece of evidence that shows the temperature around the globe is rising at an unparalleled rate to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years

You resolutely ignore the work of glaciologists that shows the effects such temperature increase had on ice caps when temperatures were at those levels. Ocean levels were many metres higher than today.

And finally you appear to reject any significant connection between rapidly increasing green house gases and the increase in temperatures. (Of course if you say temperatures aren't actually at record levels you can keep a fig leaf of logic can't you. Shame about the facts though..)

And in the end what do you do ? You arn't just insulting me Wayne by saying I need to go to a psychiatrist. I am just relating the work of the overwhelming body of science on the subject. Your accusing the whole climate science and related studies community of being corrupt and crazy.
Click to expand...

Eh?

I couldn't give a flying fig about being nice. I do care about integrity however.... and you are right, I do question the integrity od climate science, such as it is, on a number of levels.

I do NOT reject bona fide science or the observation that the earth is in a warming trend, or even that there are anthropogenic factors involved ( and more than just co2).

I do reject the politicized, mercantilized, movie starized, retrospectively adjusted version thereof.

Integrity basilio, integrity.
 
Wayne your definition of "bona fide" science appears highly selective. It appears to discard almost all the work of the climates science community. All that remains are outlier works that in a number of cases have been proven to be wrong or misconstrued or puff stuff from non climate science researchers.

It also appears that, whatever acceptance you have of global warming, it does not acknowledge the extreme measure of growth in the past 100 years in comparison to the the previous relatively stable period.

Even more importantly you don't seem to think the trend of warming will continue. Somehow it will just stop or magically reverse. You seem to have that view because you don't accept that GG have more than a passing affect on global temperatures. This is despite the fact that, again, the overwhelming body of science disagrees strongly with that view and it is only promulgated by a select few scientists.

And with that perspective you are prepared to disparage the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and ignore the exponentially accumulating physical evidence of rapid climate change.

Not buying it Wayne. It has no legs.
 
Read the link ...

During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.
Click to expand...

So 12mm per annum for 100 years = 1.2 metres .. Current rate is what again? As you were .... :1zhelp:

It also appears that, whatever acceptance you have of global warming, it does not acknowledge the extreme measure of growth in the past 100 years in comparison to the the previous relatively stable period.
Click to expand...

AND THIS WAS A PREVIOUS STABLE PERIOD ???? *HEADBANG*

12mm per annum sea level rise is STABLE??

I suggest you go and read the link you supplied basilio.
 
I'm puzzled at your comments TS. Are you saying that a rise in sea levels of 1.2 metres in 100 years (12mm a year ) is inconsequential ? For some sort of comparison consider the forecast of the current IPCC

A draft version of the next report from the IPCC (AR5), due for publication in 2014, was recently leaked. Although the information is subject to change, the draft report says sea levels are likely to rise by between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century, (compared to 18-59 centimeters in the 2007 report).
Click to expand...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

What would be the consequences of a 1.2 m increase in sea levels within 100 years ? Basically many coastal cities would be overwhelmed and effectively unlivable. Is that an acceptable scenario ?
 
basilio said:
I'm puzzled at your comments TS. Are you saying that a rise in sea levels of 1.2 metres in 100 years (12mm a year ) is inconsequential ? For some sort of comparison consider the forecast of the current IPCC

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

What would be the consequences of a 1.2 m increase in sea levels within 100 years ? Basically many coastal cities would be overwhelmed and effectively unlivable. Is that an acceptable scenario ?
Click to expand...

DERP! you are not real bright on the uptake are you basilio :banghead:

The link you supplied evidencing 150,000 years of Sea Level History stated that the ice caps have melted before and the oceans rose 12mm per annum for 100 years ipso facto the oceans rose 1.2 metres in this time period.

The current IPCC "predictions" is between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century. 84 years to end of century divided by WORST PREDICTION of 820mm = 9.761904761mm per annum rate of ocean rise. Hardly record breaking stuff compared to recent history now is it?

So what caused the glaciers to melt and the sea level to rise so quickly IN THE PAST basilio? Was it Co2 or something else?

But, but, but ... you were banging on that the global temperatures are rising at the "fastest" ever recorded. So if this is the case then the ice packs and glaciers would be melting a damn sight quicker than the current 3mm per annum :banghead:

So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.

Also as the weight of the water is spread over a larger area rather than concentrated at the poles the Earths mantle will buckle under the pressure and cause the tectonic plates to shift at an ALARMING rate. I would be more worried about THAT before some cities getting their feet wet.

As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!

Do you get it now basilio or do you want me to write this in crayon for you to understand.

P.S. Have you factored in Earth's gravitational pull when the water is dispersed? Look up Geoid basilio and arm yourself with some information instead of headline screaming Guardian scare tactics you DOLT !
 
"DERP" and "DOLT" sort of like swearing when you can't get you own way or trying to convince youself teee ssss.

Five billion years ago this earth was a gaseous fireball. Gradually it is cooling down but still some fire inside. This information is not from any other source but my head, what one learns from school and over life.

So we should be in increasingly colder conditions and more prolonged ice ages. But this is not happenning, against all this, as well as increased cloud due to warmer air (which should also cooling) it is getting hotter. This is man made climate change and a major part of this from the burning of fossil fuels. The other of course is the loss of forrests.
 
explod said:
"DERP" and "DOLT" sort of like swearing when you can't get you own way or trying to convince youself teee ssss.

Five billion years ago this earth was a gaseous fireball. Gradually it is cooling down but still some fire inside. This information is not from any other source but my head, what one learns from school and over life.

So we should be in increasingly colder conditions and more prolonged ice ages. But this is not happenning, against all this, as well as increased cloud due to warmer air (which should also cooling) it is getting hotter. This is man made climate change and a major part of this from the burning of fossil fuels. The other of course is the loss of forrests.
Click to expand...

I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.

Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth.

So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so :banghead:

Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action ;)
 
trainspotter said:
I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.

Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth.

So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so :banghead:

Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action ;)
Click to expand...
None of this alters the fact that the north pole last winter was up to 40c warmer than normal WHEN THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE COOLING ole derp.

The moon, sun and all the other naural effects are counted by science in the total sum.

And the lobbyists for oil, coal etc., can be shown to have effected official science output. The Murdock and Reauters press are the front of big business. And google is so stacked with crapola that facts are becomingvery difficult to duscern. That is why I follow my own instincts, knowledge and experience directly from community interaction.
 
explod said:
None of this alters the fact that the north pole last winter was up to 40c warmer than normal WHEN THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE COOLING ole derp.

The moon, sun and all the other naural effects are counted by science in the total sum.

And the lobbyists for oil, coal etc., can be shown to have effected official science output. The Murdock and Reauters press are the front of big business. And google is so stacked with crapola that facts are becomingvery difficult to duscern. That is why I follow my own instincts, knowledge and experience directly from community interaction.
Click to expand...

Class dismissed :bonk:
 
noco said:
Hey plod, did you hear the latest news on all those good rains in Queensland.....Must be the CO2 factor coming into play.

Townsville had it's lowest maximum of 15 c last Thursday.....I think the Sun is going blind or is it the CO2 factor also affecting the Sun.

They call it CLIMATE CHANGE.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/32073334/rain-to-clear-across-central-qld/#page1
Click to expand...

Yep, displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming.

Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.
 
explod said:
Yep, displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming.

Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.
Click to expand...

Have got a link to that....You have explained absolutely nothing that would even convince FLASH GORDON.

Now what about the Sun?

Your brain washed Green tripe has still got a hold on you.

What a about the DIPOLE?...Of course it has to be Global warming.

What about the lack of spots on the Sun?.....More Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!:D
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ducati916
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
qldfrog
qldfrog
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
basilio
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
basilio
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Top