Insuring Sea Rise

Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
I have only ever listened to Rush Limbaugh ONE time, and it was the time when he was giving his little Earth Science lecture on how melting ice caps supposedly could not cause sea level to rise, using ice in a glass as his example. I was simply flabbergasted at the level of sheer stupidity on display, and my concern about the future of America ratcheted up a significant degree on that very day, because I knew that there were some millions of Americans listening to him, and believing every word he said.
For years after that, right-wingers would try to lecture me about that simple science fact -- something I'd literally learned about in fifth grade -- as if it were an amazing revelation that would totally void the scientific consensus on sea level rise. When I'd bring up the huge amount of ice on land, in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as the fact of thermal expansion of water, it was clearly the first they were hearing about any of that. The vast majority of them lacked Junior-High levels of understanding of science and geography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
1- not an apples to apples comparison..

2- global temperatures NOT localized temperatures

3- atmospheric temperatures NOT ocean temperatures.

Sorry, I assumed you understood science and graphs.

You can post as ma y as you would like, a single pertinent one would be better.
Wow, you TOTALLY missed the point on that second link. TOTALLY. Prior to that study, we had POOR representation of the Arctic region in these estimates of global warming. Are you arguing that we should simply IGNORE the Arctic region? Because that is certainly what you APPEAR to be arguing! Just because very few people live there, is NOT a good reason for ignoring the region in terms of how fast the entire Earth is warming! Here are the relevant paragraphs from that link:

"We recalculated the average global temperatures from 1998-2012 and found that the rate of global warming had continued to rise at 0.112C per decade instead of slowing down to 0.05C per decade as previously thought," said Zhang who is also a professor with UAF's College of Natural Science and Mathematics.

Zhang said their new estimates showed that the Arctic warmed more than six times the global average during that time period.

The team developed new methods of incorporating the Arctic temperature data into global temperature data to better estimate the average temperatures.

Most current estimates use global data that tend to represent a long time span and provide good coverage of a global geographic area. But the remote Arctic lacks a robust network of instruments to collect temperature data.

To improve the dataset in time and space, the team relied on temperature data collected from the International Arctic Buoy Program at the University of Washington. For global data, the team used newly corrected sea surface temperatures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Zhang said this study expands on NOAA research and other recent studies that have either supported or refuted the idea of a "global warming hiatus" by re-estimating the average global temperatures during that time period with more accurate and representative data.


LeRoy: It's funny to see you arguing mathematics with a Professor of Mathematics. And to see you arguing that we should NOT want "more accurate and representative data".
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
Classic, when you don't like what the data says, change the calculations until you get the result you want.
I see. Yet another person arguing that we should simply IGNORE the entire Arctic region of the planet, simply because he does not 'like' what the numbers from that region are telling us. Funny stuff, Libertine.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
1- not an apples to apples comparison..

2- global temperatures NOT localized temperatures

3- atmospheric temperatures NOT ocean temperatures.

Sorry, I assumed you understood science and graphs.

You can post as ma y as you would like, a single pertinent one would be better.
You also seem to be missing the point of the third link. The summary paragraph:

A new multi-institutional study of the so-called global warming "hiatus" phenomenon -- the possible temporary slowdown of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) trend said to have occurred from 1998 to 2013 -- concludes the hiatus simply represents a redistribution of energy within Earth system, which includes the land, atmosphere and the ocean.


LeRoy: So here you appear to be arguing that we should simply NOT CARE about what is happening to oceanic temperatures? That only atmospheric and land temperatures should be of any interest or concern to us?!?


Here is my reaction to THAT position:


:stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid:
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
You also seem to be missing the point of the third link. The summary paragraph:

A new multi-institutional study of the so-called global warming "hiatus" phenomenon -- the possible temporary slowdown of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) trend said to have occurred from 1998 to 2013 -- concludes the hiatus simply represents a redistribution of energy within Earth system, which includes the land, atmosphere and the ocean.


LeRoy: So here you appear to be arguing that we should simply NOT CARE about what is happening to oceanic temperatures? That only atmospheric and land temperatures should be of any interest or concern to us?!?


Here is my reaction to THAT position:


:stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid:
It's literally shifting the goal posts 20 different ways... the scam artists in lab coats saw that the data was proving them wrong so there's a scramble to try and maintain that humans are bad for the earth.

We have been assured for 30 years of these projections that they accounted for every possible variable... thanks for proving them all wrong.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
It's literally shifting the goal posts 20 different ways... the scam artists in lab coats saw that the data was proving them wrong so there's a scramble to try and maintain that humans are bad for the earth.

We have been assured for 30 years of these projections that they accounted for every possible variable... thanks for proving them all wrong.
Wow. Show you a study that documents an immense amount of heat going into the world's oceans, and your reaction is: "What, me worry?" You're looking a lot like that fellow in my avatar.

And meanwhile:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm

A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon, we're talking real money.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Wow. Show you a study that documents an immense amount of heat going into the world's oceans, and your reaction is: "What, me worry?" You're looking a lot like that fellow in my avatar.

And meanwhile:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm

A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon, we're talking real money.
So now you lean on the models you just spent 3 posts debunking to make your next point...

Sorry, you already debunked that link.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
So now you lean on the models you just spent 3 posts debunking to make your next point...

Sorry, you already debunked that link.
I did nothing of the kind, nor did you 'debunk' it. You are really out of your depths here, do you know that?
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I did nothing of the kind, nor did you 'debunk' it. You are really out of your depths here, do you know that?
Look, I'm sorry that you don't understand the science that you are presenting.

At first you disputed the comment about the hiatus, posted 3 links which disproved the models, and then you post a new link resting on models, except you already debunked them.

So, which one is correct? You can't have it both ways. One position refutes the other.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,212
Colorado
Look, I'm sorry that you don't understand the science that you are presenting.

At first you disputed the comment about the hiatus, posted 3 links which disproved the models, and then you post a new link resting on models, except you already debunked them.

So, which one is correct? You can't have it both ways. One position refutes the other.
What I posted were three links each showing in a different way that there has BEEN no hiatus, no PAUSE, in global warming. I am deeply sorry to hear that this has not penetrated your cranium. Try reading them again. Maybe it will penetrate on a second reading.