Sea level potential rise doubles in new study

[Andylusion]

Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally
occurring flux of CO2 emitted and absorbed every year. You can see it in the graphs of the CO2 that are collected worldwide. But the increase from 280 ppm to the present 400+ ppm is almost totally one hundred percent created.

That is factually, not correct. The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

That is a 'fact'. You can deny that, but you are simply disqualifying yourself from the discussion in doing so.

Trying to tie the increase in PPM to human CO2, is based on one single, and fundamentally flawed assumption.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony. You can see this assumption, in all the eco-freak-out literature.

They assume the green arrows. That land created CO2 is emitted at the exact same amount as land absorbed CO2.

Same with the sea. Same amount emitted as absorbed.

With this assumed basis, then every amount of additional CO2 created by humans, magically topples the perfect balance of nature.

Thus, all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.... MUST.... based on the assumed magical perfect balance theory, be due to human activity which screwed up the magic balance.

Of course this assumption is entirely false, and is even proven false by the very data that the eco-freak-out people use to justify their position.

The irony is that, eco-freak-out people use historic CO2 levels to claim our levels are high. Yet if we look at the exact same data, over a longer time frame, such as this example above, we can clearly see that CO2 levels have been both higher, and lower, than current day.

And crucially to my point, the one consistent aspect of CO2 levels is..... they are constantly changing. Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down.

But that's impossible, if the CO2 emissions and absorption rates, are in perfect balance, which is required to blame all atmosphere increases on human created CO2.

In other words... all that Eco-freak-out crap... it's all BS. Total crap.

 

[Andylusion]

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- Washington Post 11/2/1922
Rr

Not possible.... You are saying something contradicting left-wing conventional wisdom, and is therefore automatically a forgery.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- Washington Post 11/2/1922
Rr

Not possible.... You are saying something contradicting left-wing conventional wisdom, and is therefore automatically a forgery.

Global Warming — 1922?

Warm Welcome
Rumor: A 1922 newspaper article warned that climate change was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.
David Mikkelson
From the archive

Claim: A 1922 newspaper article reported that "radical change in climatic conditions" was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.

TRUE



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Right there

Many leading experts prior to the Hansen era, agreed that the earlier Arctic warming was real, and quite dramatic.

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports by raising the ocean levels.

Leading Arctic expert from 1953

The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

Leading Arctic expert from 1952

LONDON (A.P.).-The earth is getting warmer. The oceans are getting deeper. The glaciers are getting smaller. Even the fish are changing their way of life.

All this and more is going on because of a vast, unaccountable, century-by-century change, in climate. In his study at Bedford College in London, Britain’s distinguished geographer, Professor Gordon Manley, is worrying about it.

Leading geographer from 1950

Dr. Ahlman urged the establishment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900. The navigable season along Western Spitzbergen now last- ed eight months instead of three.

Leading Arctic expert from 1947

it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet.

Russian report from 1940

 

[mamooth]

The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

The change in isotope ratios proves the human origin of the increase. And since you were ignorant of that simple fact, you're clearly not qualified to be in the discussion.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

And you don't understand something as simple as an equilibrium system. Another fail.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony.

No, no such assumption is made. You're just making stupid crap up.

And if you didn't fail so hard at all the science, you wouldn't have to scream hysterically about "eco-freaks".

You need to grasp that you're completely ignorant of this topic, because all you do is cut-and-paste from conspiracy blogs. Your cult masters only feed you the data deemed necessary for your programming, and that's why you get everything so wrong.

 

[jc456]

Global Warming : Feature Articles

So the earth warming 20 times faster is by accident?

Can you say exaggeration?

 

[Old Rocks]

Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally
occurring flux of CO2 emitted and absorbed every year. You can see it in the graphs of the CO2 that are collected worldwide. But the increase from 280 ppm to the present 400+ ppm is almost totally one hundred percent created.

That is factually, not correct. The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

That is a 'fact'. You can deny that, but you are simply disqualifying yourself from the discussion in doing so.

Trying to tie the increase in PPM to human CO2, is based on one single, and fundamentally flawed assumption.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony. You can see this assumption, in all the eco-freak-out literature.

They assume the green arrows. That land created CO2 is emitted at the exact same amount as land absorbed CO2.

Same with the sea. Same amount emitted as absorbed.

With this assumed basis, then every amount of additional CO2 created by humans, magically topples the perfect balance of nature.

Thus, all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.... MUST.... based on the assumed magical perfect balance theory, be due to human activity which screwed up the magic balance.

Of course this assumption is entirely false, and is even proven false by the very data that the eco-freak-out people use to justify their position.

View attachment 71681

The irony is that, eco-freak-out people use historic CO2 levels to claim our levels are high. Yet if we look at the exact same data, over a longer time frame, such as this example above, we can clearly see that CO2 levels have been both higher, and lower, than current day.

And crucially to my point, the one consistent aspect of CO2 levels is..... they are constantly changing. Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down.

But that's impossible, if the CO2 emissions and absorption rates, are in perfect balance, which is required to blame all atmosphere increases on human created CO2.

In other words... all that Eco-freak-out crap... it's all BS. Total crap.

My, my, you use a chart outlining the CO2 levels in terms of millions of years, for a comparison of what has been happening in the last 150.

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

Andy, you are either one dumb fuck, or a professional liar. Your chart is irrelevant to the present. And the Hockey Stick graph for the last 1000 years has been confirmed by more than a dozen differant studies using differant proxies, done by differant researchers in differant nations.

We have just finished the two warmest years on record, and it looks like this year may rank in the top three. And you silly flap yappers just keep on yapping, and demonstrating your total ignorance.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well.........clearly we should be either throwing non-believers in jail or burning them at the stake!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate Science has oversimplified the cause of warming......waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much focus on human causation.

ghey


No Proof of Man-Made Climate Change, Says Greenpeace Co-founder

www.lavoisier.com.au/.../climate-change/...proofnotco2-2009.pdf

'You can't absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 is responsible for global warming?' The Today programme out of its depth on climate science - Carbon Brief

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming


Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

 

[Wyatt earp]

The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

The change in isotope ratios proves the human origin of the increase. And since you were ignorant of that simple fact, you're clearly not qualified to be in the discussion.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

And you don't understand something as simple as an equilibrium system. Another fail.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony.

No, no such assumption is made. You're just making stupid crap up.

And if you didn't fail so hard at all the science, you wouldn't have to scream hysterically about "eco-freaks".

You need to grasp that you're completely ignorant of this topic, because all you do is cut-and-paste from conspiracy blogs. Your cult masters only feed you the data deemed necessary for your programming, and that's why you get everything so wrong.

The change in isotope ratios proves the human origin of the increase.


The atmosphere is not homgoenous, laterally or horizontally. It varies in pressure, density, heat, composition hourly, daily, millenially, earth events such as volcanoes,earthquakes both on land and sea have local and wide area effects. Cosmis events such as sun spots and perhaps cyclical changes in the stratosphere have also affected climate. One component (C12/13 ratio) appears to have varied over a tiny fraction of geological time.
CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap/snoe level albido effect.



.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally
occurring flux of CO2 emitted and absorbed every year. You can see it in the graphs of the CO2 that are collected worldwide. But the increase from 280 ppm to the present 400+ ppm is almost totally one hundred percent created.

That is factually, not correct. The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

That is a 'fact'. You can deny that, but you are simply disqualifying yourself from the discussion in doing so.

Trying to tie the increase in PPM to human CO2, is based on one single, and fundamentally flawed assumption.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony. You can see this assumption, in all the eco-freak-out literature.

They assume the green arrows. That land created CO2 is emitted at the exact same amount as land absorbed CO2.

Same with the sea. Same amount emitted as absorbed.

With this assumed basis, then every amount of additional CO2 created by humans, magically topples the perfect balance of nature.

Thus, all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.... MUST.... based on the assumed magical perfect balance theory, be due to human activity which screwed up the magic balance.

Of course this assumption is entirely false, and is even proven false by the very data that the eco-freak-out people use to justify their position.

View attachment 71681

The irony is that, eco-freak-out people use historic CO2 levels to claim our levels are high. Yet if we look at the exact same data, over a longer time frame, such as this example above, we can clearly see that CO2 levels have been both higher, and lower, than current day.

And crucially to my point, the one consistent aspect of CO2 levels is..... they are constantly changing. Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down.

But that's impossible, if the CO2 emissions and absorption rates, are in perfect balance, which is required to blame all atmosphere increases on human created CO2.

In other words... all that Eco-freak-out crap... it's all BS. Total crap.

My, my, you use a chart outlining the CO2 levels in terms of millions of years, for a comparison of what has been happening in the last 150.

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

Andy, you are either one dumb fuck, or a professional liar. Your chart is irrelevant to the present. And the Hockey Stick graph for the last 1000 years has been confirmed by more than a dozen differant studies using differant proxies, done by differant researchers in differant nations.

We have just finished the two warmest years on record, and it looks like this year may rank in the top three. And you silly flap yappers just keep on yapping, and demonstrating your total ignorance.

Nothing you said, contradicted my point. If anything, you verified my position.

From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement? Yes or no answer please.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

6 feet of sea level raise would mean good bye to New orleans, Miami(most of southern florida), Tampa, Balitmore, Boston, and New york would flooded in areas. China would lose its two most powerful cities and this is just for starters.

where will that water come from?

Yep six feet of water is a lot of water. So you know that adding water in an ocean will make sea level rise, or maybe. And that those towns would suffer if a six feet add was seen. Wow you're a pretty intelligent guy to know that. Everyone else already knew this though, so what's your point?

Still waiting for the source of all this water add.

The melting of greenland, west Antarctica and mountain glaciers. A little bit of thermal expansion caused by the warming oceans.

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

Not giving all the information is just as bad as propaganda(Joseph Goebel would be proud of you libs).
Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change

Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change

Then when God doesn't play the liberals game, just lie about it, as typical of sociopathic behavior.
List of expanding glaciers

Not by Fire but by Ice

THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

When the fanatical leftwing fundamentalist religious zelots realize that their money tree is in jeopardy, they start ranting and raving, calling us names, then start setting the dooms day for not 10, not 20, but 100 years since the 10 years didn't work. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

CNN anchor suggests meteor hurtling toward Earth could be a result of global warming

'We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,' Feyerick says. 'What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?'

Such stupid people who are on Communist News Network.

 

[skookerasbil]

The thought that CO2 is the only thing affecting the climate really is about the stoopidest concept Ive ever heard. It is beyond duh.........
But don't forget......there are bozo's who really believe that but also there are the majority of these climate crusaders who aren't so stoopid and must carry the flag of the established narrative. The agenda..........is everything.

 

[skookerasbil]

CNN anchor suggests meteor hurtling toward Earth could be a result of global warming

'We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,' Feyerick says. 'What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?'

Such stupid people who are on Communist News Network.

Dang..........

Perhaps Planet 9's entrance into our solar system is linked to global warming?

 

[mamooth]

One component (C12/13 ratio) appears to have varied over a tiny fraction of geological time.

It "appears" about to have steadily moved in one direction because we're burning fossil fuels.

And you "feel" that theory is wrong, so you simply handwave it away. But that's not how science works. If you want to replace the prevailing theory, you have to come up with something better. So do some science, and present for us your theory of why the isotope ratio is now steadily moving in one direcion. You don't have to, of course, but you'll be ignored if you don't.

CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap/snoe level albido effect..

No, the science closely examines water vapor, particulate and albedo effects. You're just tossing out another strange fantasy there, which is why you're ignored.

 

[mamooth]

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

Not giving all the information is just as bad as propaganda(Joseph Goebel would be proud of you libs).

And you left out the information that those volcanoes weren't new. Thus, by your own standards, you admit to being a Nazi propagandist.

So, let's see what other goosestepping you're going to show us.

Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change

So, you're deliberately lying about that incident, claiming it was long term climate instead of local weather that trapped the ship. You certainly are racking up the lies.

Then when God doesn't play the liberals game, just lie about it, as typical of sociopathic behavior.
List of expanding glaciers

So you list the few expanding glaciers, and deliberately leave out the vastly more numerous melting glaciers. You defined such withholding of information as being a Nazi propaganda tactic, which again, by your own standards, makes you such a propagandist.

When the fanatical leftwing fundamentalist religious zelots realize that their money tree is in jeopardy, they start ranting and raving, calling us names, then start setting the dooms day for not 10, not 20, but 100 years since the 10 years didn't work.

And another deranged fantasy on your part. Boring. We get it, you like to fake crazy stories.

Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.

Non-cultists don't bring politics into it. You don't see the rational people here raving about politics, yet you do it constantly. Those who can talk about the science, do talk about the science. Those who can't, they scream deranged political conspiracy theories. Your political cult has issued you your marching orders, and plainly you're a good cult soldier who always obeys.

You're not fooling anyone. We all know you're lying, as do all the scientists. Each time you lie here, you'll get called out. Your scam isn't working. Go peddle it elsewhere, unless you enjoy the humiliation.

 

[mamooth]

From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement? Yes or no answer please.

Yes, over the short term.

And since it changed so abruptly over the short term, something that has never happened before, that indicates a human cause of the change.

Please don't deflect from that again by pointing to long-term changes, as it's not relevant.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement? Yes or no answer please.

Yes, over the short term.

And since it changed so abruptly over the short term, something that has never happened before, that indicates a human cause of the change.

Please don't deflect from that again by pointing to long-term changes, as it's not relevant.

So when the planet went from .03% (that is 3 1/100th) of the total atmosphere to .04% (that is 4 1/100th) of the total atmosphere, the globe started warming? I have explained this before, that the TRUE reason for Green House gasses , it water vapor. That almost 70% of the atmosphere is water(clouds). But do you know why liberals go after carbon products? Because they can tax it. If liberals could tax water vapor they would, but since they cant tax evaporation(except in small areas) they go after the next big thing. Why else is Obummer going after Exxon, BP, and Coal. I wonder what liberals will do, when oil, isn't around any more, and their plastic keyboards, medical supplies, and other items with plastic aren't any more? Liberals are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't expect the liberals to read this as then it would require them to do critical thinking, and since a liberal doesn't use a brain....

An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth
The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It
by Albert Gore

After 10 Years, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient

After 10 Years, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient
May 4, 20168:55 AM ET

SO instead of 10 year predicted where the people responsible for the SCAM are still alive and be held accountable, they libtars are predicting 100 years down the road where they can make billions of dollars from our Taxes, and when they die in 20 years not be held accountable. This is so typical of liberal elites who steal the citizens taxes just to make the elites UBER wealthy. And the dumbass liberal sheeple just adore them. Even NPR is starting to get it, that GW is a scam.