Sea Level Rise

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:33 pm

Just throwing it out there, a significant portion of my undergraduate degree and graduate courses I have taken have been on "global climate change". If anyone wants to discuss as the theory of "anthropogenically induced climate change" please let me know. I did research and worked with the US Naval Research labs, and graduated from a very prestigious program so I can talk it in depth.

Bottom line upfront, I drive an F-150 and there's no reason for me to care. The science isn't there. The funding for that pseudo science is.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm


Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:24 pm

Well I guess you must be right then and the rest of don't know schidt regardless of our education or background. Good for you. :hi:

Tell me, are the ice caps and glaciers shrinking?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:34 pm

dudejcb wrote:Well I guess you must be right then and the rest of don't know schidt regardless of our education or background. Good for you. :hi:

Tell me, are the ice caps and glaciers shrinking?

Tell me what the optimum average global temperature is, which is a much more important question, is it not?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:13 pm

No Spinner. what temperature is optimal for what? For trout it's 55 degrees; bass 65. Humans are flexible with temperature but don't live well or long under water.

Whether or not global ice is melting is a simple question directly related to sea level. That is the important question if you live near sea level ... and a lot of people do ... and it's important if you don't, as those who do will want to be elsewhere eventually.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:56 pm

dudejcb wrote:No Spinner. what temperature is optimal for what? For trout it's 55 degrees; bass 65. Humans are flexible with temperature but don't live well or long under water.

Whether or not global ice is melting is a simple question directly related to sea level. That is the important question if you live near sea level ... and a lot of people do ... and it's important if you don't, as those who do will want to be elsewhere eventually.

That is part of the question of determining what the optimum temperature is. High sea levels does not mean life is worse for most people on the planet.

Also, just because glaciers are melting does not mean that it is caused by man. They have been melting for a long time.

What is the new equilibrium ice level? Warmer air means more precipitation as well. Where the temperature is never above freezing, that means more snow added to the ice pack. That's why we see thickening of the interior ice in antartica

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

However, if you cannot tell me what the optimum temperature is, then you cannot tell me that warming is not a net positive for the planet.

Can the earth be too cold? Yes.

Can the earth be too hot? Yes.

So somewhere in the middle is the inflection point? Where is that and which side of it are we on? And what is the shape around that point. Is the slope very flat or is it fairly steep?

You presume that we are on the downhill slope and therefore colder is better, which I find tough to believe.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Duck_Stank » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:00 pm

Bluesky2012 wrote:Just throwing it out there, a significant portion of my undergraduate degree and graduate courses I have taken have been on "global climate change". If anyone wants to discuss as the theory of "anthropogenically induced climate change" please let me know. I did research and worked with the US Naval Research labs, and graduated from a very prestigious program so I can talk it in depth.

Bottom line upfront, I drive an F-150 and there's no reason for me to care. The science isn't there. The funding for that pseudo science is.

I like things against it, any good points?
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:29 am

Bluesky2012 wrote:Just throwing it out there, a significant portion of my undergraduate degree and graduate courses I have taken have been on "global climate change". If anyone wants to discuss as the theory of "anthropogenically induced climate change" please let me know. I did research and worked with the US Naval Research labs, and graduated from a very prestigious program so I can talk it in depth.

Bottom line upfront, I drive an F-150 and there's no reason for me to care. The science isn't there. The funding for that pseudo science is.

Just a few references I am interested in hearing your response to, Bluesky:

http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-gi ... 15546.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:16 am

dudejcb wrote:Well I guess you must be right then and the rest of don't know schidt regardless of our education or background. Good for you. :hi:

Tell me, are the ice caps and glaciers shrinking?


Well dude, the reason I offered my credentials is because like everything else in life, it helps to show you are qualified to do the task at hand. Wouldnt want a doctor from university of phoenix online discussing a procedure to try on you would you?
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:27 am

Also "dudejcb", before we discuss this too much, have you taken quality courses on physics, differential equations, and thermodynamics? Because thats where a lot of this will take us. Thats why most people cannot give good answers on internet forums.

dudejcb wrote:No Spinner. what temperature is optimal for what? For trout it's 55 degrees; bass 65. Humans are flexible with temperature but don't live well or long under water.

Whether or not global ice is melting is a simple question directly related to sea level. That is the important question if you live near sea level ... and a lot of people do ... and it's important if you don't, as those who do will want to be elsewhere eventually.



Such a simple question in fact, that it is still a significant portion of debate for many scientists.

To answer quite a few questions I've seen on here:

First off what is the "ideal temperature". The ideal temperature in actually based off of a thermodynamic principle known as net insolar radiation. Imagine the earth is a black body, or an object whose net radiation in equals the net radiation amount out. The actual temperature of the earth would only be "ideal" based off of what the incoming radiation level is, with no regard to what we are used to. The earth in theory should act like a black body because it does not create its own radiation and has a contained amount of energy, it is only from outside objects (sun, etc) that an increase or decrease can occur.

In the short run though, the earth is more of a grey body, meaning it can withhold or block radiation from the sun through various processes. Here is where the majority of issues arise from. The earth has multiple albedo levels (reflectivity) based off of the type of surface (ice is higher than grass, etc) so this forces us to lose a good bit of radiation back to space. These albedo levels can be measured at a specific instance, but that change frequently because of natural feedback loops. This is where differential equations comes into play.

We can at a a moment predict quite well what the net albedo level of the earth is, and how much an increase or decrease in radiation should occur, but what happens when feedback loops change that over time, because nothing is constant?
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:57 am

So now let's start diving into the more well known side. First the "hockey stick graph". When you look at the typical graph that's shows of the global temperature anomaly vs carbon dioxide you will notice that the increase in temp actually occurs prior to increases in CO2. Which is actually the driving force? Either?

We don't actually know and that's the big issue. It's not clear cut. When temperature increases, weird things happen. For instance temp increases lead to an increase in water evaporation, but that makes clouds. Clouds act as both an insulator but also a reflective shield both increasing and decreasing the net albedo, so does a temperature increase actually hit a buffering loop? This is why we need advanced models. Also as CO2 increases, the ocean absorbs CO2 and is one of the biggest sinks overall. But how much can it actually absorb? We don't know. There are many versions of these sorts of feedback looks that are driving forces behind any climate change and we cannot accurately model them. Think for example of a bunch of different sized rocks dropping into the water. If you only had the ripples, could you accurately model the rocks falling? Not really, and that's a small scale example. But that's where the issue is. We only have in situ data with a minimal understanding of the feedback loops so we can only make models that semi show the issues. Too simplified and it provides no value, overly done and you likely just exaggerate natural processes.

This is where the "ice caps" issue comes into play. It is not just as simple as "ice cap melts, increase in sea level" because of a few things. Each tectonic plate is a different age thus different mass. They all are either relatively rising or sinking at different rates on the lithosphere as they age. So many places are experiencing a "sea level shift" that has no correlation to sea level rise. In fact we cannot accurately account for any sea level rise over the entirety of the world because as some places are experiencing sea level rise, just as many are experiencing a sea level drop. Now factor in the changes in all the other feedback loops and you have one heck of a mess to model hence the need for super computers but also our lack of true understanding. More to come after work. Sorry it's poorly written, it's from my phone.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:58 am

So the main point I had is that it's a complicated process. I'll be back later but that's all food for thought and to hopefully teach some sort of a less political, more scientific understanding of climate change (or what we kind of know) in a basic and abbreviated version. I didn't have a chance to read the articles, just a few comments to ill add more later if y'all want.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:25 am

Bluesky2012 wrote:First off what is the "ideal temperature". The ideal temperature in actually based off of a thermodynamic principle known as net insolar radiation.

:fingerpt:

This is where so many people go wrong. It is based on subjective value judgments.

What is the ideal temperature in your living room? It is different for everyone. Some are willing to pay more for it to be a lot cooler in summer and warmer in the winter. Some like the fresh air so let the temps fluctuate for a good part of the year, etc.

When it comes to the ideal temperature of the earth, it depends on the physical impacts, some will be unquestionably positive as will some be unquestionably negative whenever there is any change. Aggregating all the changes, positive, negative, and ones that some see as positive and others see as negative, is based on subjective value judgments!!!!!!!!

Good science can give us good estimates if sufficient knowledge exists. All the science in the world cannot tell us what we prefer. Liberals of course are more than happy to tell us what we should prefer and impose that upon us via the force of law, but that is not science. That is religion run amok. They like to pretend otherwise.

I was just involved in a large project that included a decision analysis expert. The science behind decision analysis is very fascinating. I learned a tremendous amount.

You described the steady state equilibrium temperature. Not the optimum. Of course, the scientists don't even know what that is for varying amounts of CO2. The estimates of the importance of CO2 seem to have consistently declined as the scientific understanding has improved. Even understanding that is a long way from understanding all the impacts that will have, both positive and negative and neutral, and then determining whether that is a net positive or a net negative and then if it is a net negative what is the cost of correcting it and does that exceed the value.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:56 am

That last sentence is key. People fail to realize the economics of the system. The resonance time of CO2 that we release is insane. I don't remember the exact numbers but we had to go through and calculate the effects of if the US stopped producing any CO2 emissions, how long it would take to get the atmospheric CO2 levels back to various amounts. The figured are astronomical. Driving your Prius won't do crap. If the US just shut down everything, and the world cut it's production in half, we would barely put a dent on anything within our lifetimes. Is that worth sacrificing the well being and livelihood of everyone when we can't even be guaranteed that it would do anything?
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:01 am

SpinnerMan wrote:.
You presume that we are on the downhill slope and therefore colder is better, which I find tough to believe.


Solid point. For the majority of the world, an increase in global temperature would provide a much better and longer growing season. Not a bad side effect.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby huntmmup » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:01 am

Bluesky since you have a fancy degree and all I will tell you two things: nobody, not even your smartass, knows for sure whether CO2 has caused the warming or not. And nobody knows what will happen if we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The only two things we know for sure are that temperatures have increased rapidly in the last century, and CO2 has increased.

Saying that we shouldnt do anything because the CO2 takes a long time to dissipate is just dumb. Because you fail to mention the massive problems we're giving our children if you're wrong and the scientists are right; even if there is only a 1% chance that they are right, we should try to reduce emissions. Because that 1% chance is something really really terrible happening to our kids and grandkids planet, but spending 0.06% of our GDP isnt going to hurt you too much.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:37 am

If you did the math cutting our GDP in half still wouldn't make a difference so if you want to live without power, etc all for unsubstantiated claims, go ahead. If everyone started walking, not driving, no electricity, etc, it would not make a difference. The science proves that. Look at the carbon cycle and how long the sequestering takes. I assume you haven't ever actually looked at the data for that if you want to make those bold implications. So go ahead, live with lower carbon emissions and feel good but you aren't making a difference.

Also your claim that they have increased rapidly is incorrect. Check your data, it's been decreasing recently. My "fancy degree" is the same degree the scientists you're arguing for have.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:41 am

Also might want to look into some of the "green companies" Obama invested into with tax payer money that has failed if you want to discuss burdens being passed on to our children. We can keep the debate pure science, pure economics, or pure politics, but simply throwing emotional, unsubstantiated, and uninformed claims out there provides nothing.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby huntmmup » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:14 am

quote 1: If you did the math cutting our GDP in half still wouldn't make a difference
quote 2: Look at the carbon cycle and how long the sequestering takes.
quote 3: Also your claim that they have increased rapidly is incorrect. Check your data, it's been decreasing recently.

Your comments make me sure you have never studied this stuff.

1 You obviously did not read the latest IPCC that says spending and carbon cuts that would reduce GDP by 0.06% would be enough to avoid a disaster.

2 Your thinking is that "we cant do much about the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere, so it doesnt matter if we put more and more and more into the atmosphere!" That is the least scientific analysis I think i have ever read about the greenhouse effect, even if you dont believe the warming over the last century has nothing to do with CO2.

3 Temps have decreased slightly over the last decade. If you had actually studied this you would know that this has actually happened many times over the past century, short periods of temp pause/slight decline. Heres the graph, you genius tell us whether **global mean average long term temperatures** have gone up or down:

Image
Last edited by huntmmup on Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby huntmmup » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:16 am

A tip: dont use the phrase "the science proves that" when the major scientific body on this subject, the IPCC, and a very big majority of scientists, say it does prove that.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby go get the bird » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:22 am

huntmmup wrote:A tip: dont use the phrase "the science proves that" when the major scientific body on this subject, the IPCC, and a very big majority of scientists, say it does prove that.

Your language is impeccable. You're clearly a scholar of the English language.



:sarcmark:
MackieKnife wrote:The moral of the story is...I'm retarded.
User avatar
go get the bird
hunter
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:26 am

First off I want to laugh at how emotionally butt hurt you just got. Really good way to look like you know anything about the science and not just what msnbc feeds you.

I have read the IPCC reports. I do not concur with them hence the whole debate. If I agreed then I would not be arguing against it. Just because YOU read the report without any actual understanding other than a few snippets you got from headlines doesn't mean much.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/02/ ... et-warmer/

Your graph shows 15 years about a trend that involves millennia of data to show trends. You chose the best graph to show your point but in a geological time scale it's actually quite cool. The graph is referred to as the hockey stick graph, as sensationalized by al gore. It's shows nothing in regards to a correlation an causation between CO2 emissions and any actual long term change in global temperature anomaly.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:28 am

As well the IPCC is not the end all be all of science. It's not hard to find consensus when you pick people are hell bent to prove a subject versus an unbiased analysis.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:29 am

What is the solution if you believe we must stabilize CO2 and clearly at some point, maybe a point far in the future and maybe not so far? I do think there is great value in the science, unfortunately they have cried wolf so often and so loudly that if the wolf ever does show they have lost their credibility and we all know who that goes in the children's tale as to why you do not cry wolf when there is not one or in the case of the environmentalist there could possibly be one but they don't know for certain.

Nobody explains that solution more succinctly than Bill Gates.

Jump ahead to about 4:00.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby huntmmup » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:35 am

go get the bird, oh youre a grammar and spelling Nazi? Only pretentious immature college kids have ever complained about my spelling and grammar on the internet, but I bet you feel good about yourself.

I do not watch msnbc, nor fox. So, if you do not agree with the ipcc, where is your science? You say that recently temperature has gone down, but then cry when I post a graph of recent temperatures? :lol3:

Just answer this one question: in a hypothetical world where all else stayed the same, if the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere increased 1000x, would the temperature of the planet increase or decrease? Before you whine about the planet being a intricate connected system, remember, this is a hypothetical question. Your answer to it though will reveal whether or not you actually know anything about the greenhouse effect.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Sea Level Rise

Postby Bluesky2012 » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:38 am

For huntmmup, I would like to challenge you to go take an unbiased look into the history of the IPCC, find out if you still think it's completely credible, then take an unemotional view and think about the science. If you still believe it, then what's your proposed solution?

I bring this up because I used to be a big global warming alarmist. I was all about growing green. That's why I began that course of study, but now, I do not agree with the large amounts of pseudo science, government double dipping, etc that occurs around "global warming". The more I learned, the more I realized we don't know, and the less control we have over it.
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests