Science without math … if it works for you …
Nope, I rely on logic here. The reality is that no denier math explains really well why the cap ice loss is accelerating before our eyes, BTW as the sources I use explained that the 3 feet increase in ocean rise is expected by the end of this century* I also have to report that whatever math you are using you are plugging in the incorrect data. (BTW the ocean is expected to rise a lot more if nothing is done, the end of a century is not a barrier to the rise of the seas)
- If you had looked at history you would be aware that the old 3 feet of expected rise was reported by the IPCC in an earlier report based on published science. The report did explain that that conservative value was expected **provided that there would be no acceleration in the loss of cap ice. **
We have evidence now of that acceleration taking place now. Again, I expect no denier to accept any responsibility for all those misleading blogs that insisted (and some still continue) and told us that this was not going to happen.
But your math doesn’t work?
How do you know the data is incorrect if you don’t know the correct data? The math I’m using is called division, it’s kinda the opposite of multiplication.
You are just babbling, please tell us why your math does not explain away the observed acceleration of cap ice. And indeed when the acceleration is taken into account even more of a rise is expected:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp
BTW you did tell us that we would be adding “three feet to our seawalls over the next hundred years”; again try to make your math work by doing that in less than 100 years now, and that **was provided that no acceleration of cap ice loss was observed. **
Not likely to be lower than 3 feet by the end of the century now.
Science without math … okay … you got me there … did you know family counselors are require to complete two years of calculus … just saying.
Fine, I’ll bite, GIGO, please tell me how fast the ice is melting in the arctic, is this kg yr[sup]-2[/sup]? Do you need to know the work done? You do know the energy needed to melt the ice cannot contribute to temperature, it’s a subtle point, but I must insist it’s true.
Perhaps you can point to a specific period of written human history when the sea wasn’t rising?
Just saying that if you are not then publishing your work one can indeed deduce that you are just babbling and boasting.
It is clear that you used “hundreds of years” when the scientists reported less than 90 years now for that 3 feet rise of the oceans.* So it is painfully clear why you will never publish to show ‘how wrong all the scientists that are reporting that we have a problem are’.
Not likely to ever happen when you only showed that you have a propensity to plug in the wrong information to your calculations.
*And again, it is clear that you don’t know or willfully ignore the observed acceleration loss of cap ice.
There’s been plenty of calculus textbooks already published, maybe pick yourself up one at Goodwill or someplace, while you’re there get a decent physics textbook. I’m surprised you caved so quickly and resorted to “just publish your own damn paper”.
Science without math … you have no calculations … your words don’t even rhyme … have you ever considered stamp collecting as a hobby?
No, you really do think that your boner of a mistake will be ignored? Less than 90 years is indeed not like “hundreds of years”. You are more deluded than what I thought.
As for your pathetic “I’m surprised you caved so quickly and resorted to “just publish your own damn paper”.”
You are only showing that indeed you are not going to ever have your work reviewed by the people that matters; so it is not a caving, it is only a demonstration to all that you are only pretending to understand the issue. And you only demonstrated to all that you do not look at cites:
from the last link I made:
Indeed, smarter people than me that made the calculations of what the seas are likely to do with the acceleration need to be confronted and shown the ‘error of their ways’… or not because they are more accurate than you. Your choice.
Yes, that is a possible 3 meters, a rise of almost 10 feet by the end of this century.
“Fear experts” … oh thank you GIGO, what a wonderful way to start a lovely Sunday morning. The science of fear without math can project anything they want to, and usually do.
I don’t read the links you provide, as they typically don’t say what you think they say. Indeed it’s surprising how often your links say the exact opposite of what you think they say. The above quote is an excellent example. I make the claim that sea levels will be 91 cm higher in 2115, you’re link claims sea levels will be 82 cm higher in 2100. Using your science of fear without math then, you can say this is, in reality, 10 feet difference. (notwithstanding grammar school long division).
“25 ± 64 cubic kilometers per year … 310 ± 74 cubic kilometers per year”. Again using your science of fear without math I can see where these are fearful numbers. However, these aren’t numbers that express acceleration. Sad but true, the science of fear without math is only about claiming fearful things, and adding 39 km[sup]3[/sup] yr[sup]-1[/sup] of ice is definitely something to be afraid of.
Funny thing is you don’t know that’s what you just said … science of fear without math … yup … claim anything you want to, proof not required, eh? BTW, the math I used here is called subtraction, kinda the opposite of addition.
Keep ignoring that I was referring to a different more recent study that takes acceleration into account.
The point stands, your so called math is implying that there is not going to be warming from CO2, and then the sun will cool down.
Problem is that the ice is melting and the oceans rising and you are left with no good explanation for that. This is indeed just common sense where your beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.
And of course doubling down just shows really were the problem is, hundreds does imply or refers to at least 200 years (hundreds of years, when it is close to a hundred one has to be specific), not just hundred as your backpedal is showing.
So, now that we figured out how that silly bone to the peanut gallery came it is clear that indeed the 3 feet are referring to the end of the century not hundreds of years into the future. And the acceleration loss observed and arctic amplification that also has been observed shows that whoever calculations you are making are missing a lot of info or are not reflecting reality.
I ain’t saying we should be fearful. However, certain cities have a lot of valuable property that belongs to a lot of people, and these cities are just inches above sea level. (Venice, Miami, etc)
This means that whoever, for whatever reason, is burning gigatons of carbon is creating what’s called a “negative externality”. They get the benefits of burning the carbon but other people, not themselves, will have to pay to move their cities, possibly abandon valuable farmland that is too close to the equator, and of course the poor in 3rd world countries will probably experience mass die-offs as they cannot adapt to these changes.
So, there’s a negative externality. Every ton of carbon you add is damaging other people’s property. Conservatives understand the nature of property damage just like liberals. Everyone should be in favor of :
- Eliminating the subsidies in favor of burning carbon. If you agree the externalities are *negative *(there is no benefit to polluting), you should at least stop paying people to do it.
- Consider charging a tax or fee per ton/kiloton of carbon burned, in order to make people price the damage they are doing into the price they pay at the sticker. How much should the fee/tax be? Well, that depends on research that there is some legitimate disagreement over. But you could start off with doing #1…
None of these things are things to fear, just annoyances that should be dealt with in a competent manner. Maybe we’d have to farm Canada or go to sealed indoor farms that are unaffected by climate. Maybe we’d have to abandon Miami eventually or build a massive wall/levy similar to what protects New Orleans (probably cheaper to do this). Every now and then, there might be a leak and maybe a few hundred billion of damage get done to the city. And so on. Everyone knows it won’t be “waterworld”. Collect DNA samples from polar bears so we can bring em back in sealed zoos after they go extinct.
100% agreement with #1, let The People pay the true cost of a gallon of gasoline and then see how we stand on carbon emissions.
Miami is 6 feet above sea level, I’ve seen maps showing Miami as just a bunch of atolls. There’s quite a few cities that will be needing to add to their sea walls, it’s been routine in the past, and it looks routine in the future. At these time intervals, any building at risk is going to be old and ready for demo anyway.
Venice is sinking, people live in the third stories of their buildings, the bottom two are already underwater.
Sure … GIGO … believe that if it makes you happy.
Nope. Not happy to see guys like you hanging around with guys like Amalgam Man. He would be ok in defeating the Silver Surfer but otherwise his powers suck. 
But seriously we are left with 2 choices here:
- You do not know the difference between “hundreds of years” and 85 years and you are really foolish.
Or 2) You do dwell too long among deniers that you just repeat lines that are designed to minimize what it is likely to happen, indeed that line of “hundreds of years” is tailor made by deniers to impress people into thinking that even the conservative estimate of a rise of 3 feet is going to happen far into the future.
Thanks to the evidence found on the accelerated loss of ice then those 3 feet are indeed the low end of what it is likely to come, and the latest report from the Berkeley Lab shows that once again you are wrong about what CO2 is doing.
I can see why you’re thankful … sheesh … I would be too if I was using the science of fear without math.
We already established that you have problems with what “hundreds” means.
We also know that you are an ignoramus about the soil in Miami, unlike the Netherlands the soil is limestone and coral, not suitable for sea walls.
Oh and you can not put walls around water wells that are getting contaminated with sea water as the surrounding sea water is moving in.
As usual, it is clear that your math can not explain that.
Don’t get too nasty. You could replace Miami’s sewer lines with sealed ones that are actively pumped, build a big pipeline to get drinking water from wells located on higher ground, elevate every structure in the city/abandon the ones on the portions that are too low.
Oh, this will cost a fortune? Yeah, that’s kind of the idea behind “expensive property damage from polluters”.
Point is, some of the environmentalists in their cries about climate change will go so far as to imply that we’re making earth itself uninhabitable for human life. The CO2 so far isn’t threatening that…yet.
(I’ve read theories saying if it warms up enough, we might unleash frozen methane and actually extinct almost all life, but that probably won’t happen I hope)
CO2 pollution is more like a very expensive set of vandalism. I can’t put a bathroom on my mobile home that vents human feces out onto the highway as I drive down it, at least not without paying some serious fines, so maybe I should also pay a fine if I permanently change the atmosphere composition of the planet I’m on.
I’m not with you, only with the ones claiming to know math while they show repeated denier nonsense that defeats the math they claim to follow.
If you were aware of what I have posted before you would know that I also do criticize the ones that indeed do that, lets not fall for the false equivalence that is also one big item that denier media is passing as a serious item.
And I do agree, the problem is that for all the talk about being an inconvenience it is true that it can be just that. Provided that we prepare now, unfortunately:
[looks at current congress]
We are more likely to not do much and run into more damage and expense thanks to the current “see no evil” do nothing congress; and the local politicians in Miami are not helping either.