Climate Change Causes Sea Level Rise to Accelerate 50 Percent in Past 20 years

**Endus** · 2017-11-23, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Aehl

Oh? Saying that models that predict maybe possibly perhaps what happens 50 years from now may be wrong is lying?

No it isnt.

That isn't what you originally said. So now you're moving goalposts, rather than stand by the egregious falsehood you originally stated, which was that we can't see if actual events line up with models until 50-200 years out. Which is false. Models don't start that far out, there's modelled progressions the whole way through.

50 years is 2067. Got any facts to state that the models you talk about are accurate and that this is what **will*** happen in 50 years?

Got any evidence? You have been to 2067?

No?

Then how can you state with any degree of certainty that the models are accurate or correct?

You cant. No one can.

1> It's convenient that you're using "50 years" as your measure, because the oldest models are over 50 years old. And nailed warming trends pretty darned accurately. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#3b4f89f36614

2> You're confusing "models" with "magical predictions", which just demonstrates that you don't have the slightest clue what models are, how they work, or what they're for. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The short answer is "they already predict warming since 1900 accurately, and the earliest models have borne out as time's gone on, so there's little reason to call their accuracy into question since all the evidence points to them being solid".

It's particularly silly since we know models make assumptions, such as how emissions patterns will change over the time they're modeling, and you have to put in actual emissions trends to the model rather than the assumed trends if you want to see how they track actual events. Until we can do that, they're models of possible warming trends, usually done with different ranges of conditions to give some idea of how changes in those conditions will change outcomes.

This is all really basic stuff.

Well what Id like you to do, is prove to me with evidence that what these models say is in any way shape or form correct.

I already linked the IPCC report. I'll do it again, here; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

That's the most comprehensive single collection of evidence you'll find. It isn't the sum total, though, just the high points. There's a lot more that they didn't bother detailing.

See Endus, thats the thing with this entire garbage...NOWHERE do I see the words "We could be wrong". That, btw is a fact. All these models, all these projections, could very well be 100% wrong.

Yes or no?

Be honest.

Literally all science is based on that premise. It isn't a useful argument for contradicting anything. Literally all you're stating here is that scientific conclusions might be falsifiable, and that's a fundamental requirement for science to be "science", rather than bullshit someone's made up. Nobody brings this up because it's core to the entire concept of the scientific method itself, everyone knows this. It's taught in elementary school. How are you not aware of this?

**Aehl** · 2017-11-23, 07:07 AM

Literally all science is based on that premise.

Good.

Then you will understand my healthy skepticism on what I see as just another doomsday prediction with no real facts to back it up other than :"Oh we mean it this time"

Like yet another dud prediction:

The BOM report, that for first time since regular satellite images became available, that the 2015/16 cyclone season (the first cyclone season after Tim Flannery predicted the number of severe cyclones would increase) was only season not to record even a single severe tropical cyclone (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) in the Australian region.

This btw is the same climate alarmist who said in 2007:

So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems...

and here we are in 2017 and

Storage Capacity.(ML) Level
Sydney Catchment 2,581,837 84.6%
Blue Mountains 2,572,365 85.0%
Warragamba 2,026,974 86.6%
Avon 146,703 82.7%

Oh dear.

Sorry Endus, the boy cried wolf once too often and we aint listening.

**Xargoth6634** · 2017-11-23, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Endus

A few critical points;

Whelp...we're fucked.

**Endus** · 2017-11-23, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Aehl

Good.

Then you will understand my healthy skepticism on what I see as just another doomsday prediction with no real facts to back it up other than :"Oh we mean it this time"

1> There are no "doomsday predictions" being made.

2> You're flat-out refusing to look at the facts, because educating yourself as to the basics would mean having to admit that you've been so clearly wrong. Refusing to look at the facts doesn't make them vanish, it just means you're being willfully ignorant, out of malice.

Like yet another dud prediction:

Oh, look, you still don't understand that "weather" and "climate" aren't synonyms. I linked a NASA page above that explained it, maybe that was too technical. Try this, I guess; http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-climate.htm

This btw is the same climate alarmist who said in 2007:

and here we are in 2017 and

Right, Tim Flannery, who was the Chief Commissioner of Australia's Climate Commission, at the time. And you're dismissing him as some "alarmist" by flagrantly misrepresenting quotes out of context;
https://indifferencegivesyouafright....er-fill-again/

You're back to straight-up lying, again. Why is that?

**Aehl** · 2017-11-23, 08:40 PM

Out of context? Thats a reach even for you

His actual words:

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

in 2007

Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain ...

and here

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005: “But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment – if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ‘98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again…. So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature…

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005: “But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment – if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ‘98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again…. So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature…

No doomsday predictions? What do you call these?

Cities under water? Mass starvation? Mass evacuations? Twenty foot rising seas? War? Famine? More cyclones? More hurricanes? "We have reached the tipping point" - who said that again?

Refusing to look at the facts doesn't make them vanish, it just means you're being willfully ignorant, out of malice.

Y'know Endus, you are of course way too young to remember any of this so Ill give you a primer:"

First it was

Atomic bombs will shatter the planet
Then atomic bombs will kick us out of orbit and into the sun
Then atomic bombs will kick us out of orbit and away from the sun
Then it was the Saturn Conjunction, an alignment of planets that will cause massive earthquakes and destroy the world
Before that it was syphilis

and then theres this

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

and this

For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.

All of these are "out of context" too? Nope.

- - - Updated - - -

One more

Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

And that didnt happen either.....I mean I can go on and on and list one dud prediction after another, but you get my point.

I don't buy it, I don't believe it, I've heard it all before.

**Endus** · 2017-11-23, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Aehl

Out of context? Thats a reach even for you

His actual words:

in 2007

and here

Right. Which explains how you were completely misrepresenting the context.

No doomsday predictions? What do you call these?

Cities under water? Mass starvation? Mass evacuations? Twenty foot rising seas? War? Famine? More cyclones? More hurricanes? "We have reached the tipping point" - who said that again?

Those aren't "doomsday predictions". In some cases (mass evacuations, famines, hurricanes) they're demonstrably true, today. The others are long-term projections, of varying distances into the future. You're conflating them all into the same point on the timeline, and that is a lie.

Y'know Endus, you are of course way too young to remember any of this so Ill give you a primer:"

First it was

Atomic bombs will shatter the planet
Then atomic bombs will kick us out of orbit and into the sun
Then atomic bombs will kick us out of orbit and away from the sun
Then it was the Saturn Conjunction, an alignment of planets that will cause massive earthquakes and destroy the world
Before that it was syphilis

No, we're talking about scientific theory. Your examples are not.

and then theres this

and this

All of these are "out of context" too? Nope.

The latter is. He wasn't talking of the short term. I'll let the paper who originally conducted that interview you're quoting explain how it's wrong; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-2180195.html

The former, though, is already false. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...and-180952279/

And that's without considering the aftermath of the hurricane season this year, which would arguably qualify as well.

One more

And that didnt happen either.....I mean I can go on and on and list one dud prediction after another, but you get my point.

I don't buy it, I don't believe it, I've heard it all before.

An example he was hypothesizing as a possibility, and one which essentially came true in other regions anyway.

Like so many deniers, you're really bad at this. You keep blatantly misrepresenting people's words to try and fake out what they were actually saying. Because the truth won't support your baseless anti-science conspiracy theory.

Which is also why you keep citing out of context quotes, and not actual science and data, which I've made sure to reference. Because you know the facts are completely against you, so you're trying to shift the discussion to something other than the facts, in the hopes that nobody notices that chicanery.

**Aehl** · 2017-11-26, 09:05 AM

Those aren't "doomsday predictions". In some cases (mass evacuations, famines, hurricanes) they're demonstrably true,

Oh? Name me one. Name me one "mass evacuation" from any city due to "climate change catastrophes"

today. The others are long-term projections, of varying distances into the future. You're conflating them all into the same point on the timeline, and that is a lie.

No the doomsday predictions are a lie...unless you can tell me which major city is underwater.

No, we're talking about scientific theory. Your examples are not.

My examples are what I heard growing up. Lots of them. Im a cold War baby, mate...see, when I was growing up there were nuclear bombers roaming the world 24/7. Remember?

"God rest ye merry gentlemen whilst you lay safe in bed
1000 tonnes of hydrogen are circling overhead
We'll decimate the enemy
And we will all be dead
Oh tidings of comfort and joy..."

This was, of course decades before you were even born.

Which is also why you keep citing out of context quotes, and not actual science and data, which I've made sure to reference. Because you know the facts are completely against you, so you're trying to shift the discussion to something other than the facts, in the hopes that nobody notices that chicanery.

I quoted HIS EXACT WORDS. Word for word.

Okay Endus heres a rock solid fact for you. There projections are theories and guesswork and unless someone can go to 2067 and tell us that they are accurate, I will treat them with a grain of salt the size of the Great Pyramid.

BTW heres a new one

http://www.news.com.au/technology/en...fc714a1b7cf0a6

However, climate scientists are warning the conditions in another of Australia’s capitals could get so bad it may become “not viable” to live there in decades to come.

Note how they can say this but they cant be sure for several decades....

A combination of debilitating humidity and what’s known as the “urban heat island effect” mixed in with a good dose of climate change could leave Darwin off-limits to all but the hardiest.

Or not. More panic mongering.

“If we can’t find a way to make our cities cooler, they will eventually become uninhabitable.”....But the result is the same — increasingly uninhabitable cities

It's hot its climate change........
Its cold its climate change..........
Its raining its climate change.........
It isn't raining its climate change.......

Righttt...........

**Dontrike** · 2017-11-26, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by lewdest

[IMG]http://jameswchenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pie-chart.jpg[/IG]

Oh noooooo, someone save the poor environment from these greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you want to actually give a source for this image or should we all just assume you made it on your own?

**Kraenen** · 2017-11-26, 01:23 PM

A lot of people here are just afraid of change and adaptation.

**XangXu** · 2017-11-26, 02:09 PM

Yes but i'll be dead by the time this "Slow Appocalypse" actually turns into someting life threatening so...

I mean i'm not having children either...

**Allybeboba** · 2017-11-26, 02:16 PM