rising sea levels

[Don Quixote]

how do the 'no global warming' folks explain the rising sea levels

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

how do the 'no global warming' folks explain the rising sea levels

Don, I don't know of anyone who disputes the average median temperatures on the planet have increased over the past century. This is scientifically backed data that is irrefutable. The people you call "no global warming folks" are those who do not believe that the cause of global warming is human activity. This is where there is a difference of opinion, not in the fact that we are getting warmer.

Now, you said "rising sea levels" but how do you determine this? It's not like we have a giant measuring stick we go stick into the middle of the ocean every year, to see how much it has gone up or down! Much of the "data" we are seeing these days, is suspect to begin with, because there is big money involved in this whole "global warming" scheme. It benefits certain people to propagate this myth that human activity is causing the earth to heat up and we are heading for certain doom.... (if we don't fork over trillions of tax dollars to "fix" the problem!) You see???

Here's the deal, Don... The Earth is in a warming cycle. It has been for over 200 years. This cycle may last 1000 to 10,000 years, or it may end abruptly with a volcanic eruption or similar atmospheric calamity. Much of this has to do with the Sun, and we have no control over what the Sun does. As humans here on Earth, nothing we can do will prevent the Sun from heating the Earth more or less.

I have heard the "freaks" of global warming, claiming that if we don't act now, the oceans will rise so many feet over the next decade or two, and entire cities will be underwater! ALARM!! But here's the thing... IF that should happen, don't you imagine the dramatic change in water temps due to the melting ice, which enable the convection and conveyance of deep ocean currents, which in turn, enable most of the sea life to exist and flourish, and control all the tropical storms and hurricanes, will present a much bigger problem to us, before any city goes under water? I mean... Don... If we have no more sea life, and we are inundated with massive mega hurricanes all the time, what difference does it make if New York goes under water? Life as we know it on this planet, will no longer exist by then!

Now Don, I am a conservative, some would argue I am a radical right-wing conservative... but I don't think we should just ignore mankind's contributions to the effects of global warming. If there is something we can do to prevent making this situation worse, or 'clean up' our mess, I want to do that, because I really do like our planet, and I hope for it to last a while longer. That said, I am not ready to gulp down a bunch of Al Gore koolaid and fork over more of my tax money on some silly and pointless exercise in futility.

[Don Quixote]

Don, I don't know of anyone who disputes the average median temperatures on the planet have increased over the past century. This is scientifically backed data that is irrefutable. The people you call "no global warming folks" are those who do not believe that the cause of global warming is human activity. This is where there is a difference of opinion, not in the fact that we are getting warmer.

Now, you said "rising sea levels" but how do you determine this? It's not like we have a giant measuring stick we go stick into the middle of the ocean every year, to see how much it has gone up or down! Much of the "data" we are seeing these days, is suspect to begin with, because there is big money involved in this whole "global warming" scheme. It benefits certain people to propagate this myth that human activity is causing the earth to heat up and we are heading for certain doom.... (if we don't fork over trillions of tax dollars to "fix" the problem!) You see???

Here's the deal, Don... The Earth is in a warming cycle. It has been for over 200 years. This cycle may last 1000 to 10,000 years, or it may end abruptly with a volcanic eruption or similar atmospheric calamity. Much of this has to do with the Sun, and we have no control over what the Sun does. As humans here on Earth, nothing we can do will prevent the Sun from heating the Earth more or less.

I have heard the "freaks" of global warming, claiming that if we don't act now, the oceans will rise so many feet over the next decade or two, and entire cities will be underwater! ALARM!! But here's the thing... IF that should happen, don't you imagine the dramatic change in water temps due to the melting ice, which enable the convection and conveyance of deep ocean currents, which in turn, enable most of the sea life to exist and flourish, and control all the tropical storms and hurricanes, will present a much bigger problem to us, before any city goes under water? I mean... Don... If we have no more sea life, and we are inundated with massive mega hurricanes all the time, what difference does it make if New York goes under water? Life as we know it on this planet, will no longer exist by then!

Now Don, I am a conservative, some would argue I am a radical right-wing conservative... but I don't think we should just ignore mankind's contributions to the effects of global warming. If there is something we can do to prevent making this situation worse, or 'clean up' our mess, I want to do that, because I really do like our planet, and I hope for it to last a while longer. That said, I am not ready to gulp down a bunch of Al Gore koolaid and fork over more of my tax money on some silly and pointless exercise in futility.

i think that there are things that we can and should be doing, HOWEVER, i do not think that they will be done or that they will be done in sufficient time to be anything than an i told you so - the reason is the 's' word - sacrifice

right now there is technology that can be applied to coal fired plants, but like every way to combat either CO2, methane or or non-greenhouse gases is expensive and the people that own coal fired plants do not want to spend the money and have lobbied heavily against implementing any kind of controls or emission cleanup

my wife and i are doing what little we can by planting more trees, composting (a bit of a problem here as composting emits greenhouse gases), recycle, installed double pane windows and bought a hybrid (prius)

oh, we also use drip watering to conserve water and we use a septic system rather than sewer

we do not use the CFL bulbs as they contain mercury

i think that mankind is incapable of acting, as a whole, until it is too late, politicians are not willing to act in ways that people do not like

otoh, when the time is right, we will be installing solar panels to generate electricity

the solar cycle is certainly responsible for some of the global warming, but i doubt that it is the only cause - CO2 and methane (CH4) contribute, but how much?

we will eventually find out

we live in interesting times

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the solar cycle is certainly responsible for some of the global warming, but i doubt that it is the only cause - CO2 and methane (CH4) contribute, but how much?

I think mankind contributes very little. Look back in history to what is known as "the little ice age" ...what did man do to cause that? Not a damn thing, Don! It was a natural climatic occurrence, and nothing we could have done would have stopped it. Look even further back to THE Ice Age... mankind wasn't even here! How did we manage to screw up the planet enough to cause that? We couldn't have, it is impossible, we weren't here! Now, jump ahead to the Industrial Age to 1971, when we enacted environmental standards... all of those years of dumping tons and tons of pollutants into our atmosphere, and what amount did we effectively change the climate of Earth? Did we not feel the profound effects of greenhouse gases because we didn't know about them yet? That makes no sense to me!

Don't take me wrong here, I realize there are things we do that don't exactly help the situation, and we should do whatever we can to avoid doing things that harm the environment, but I don't believe it is possible for us to destroy the planetary ecosystem, even if we tried. Nature could do it, and probably will do it eventually, that's the way the cookie crumbles. At some point in the future, our sun will burn out, a giant comet will careen into the Earth and destroy all life on the planet, a gamma ray burst will hit us, our solar system will be sucked into a black hole... plenty of shit can happen, but there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

[KingCondanomation]

i think that there are things that we can and should be doing, HOWEVER, i do not think that they will be done or that they will be done in sufficient time to be anything than an i told you so - the reason is the 's' word - sacrifice

right now there is technology that can be applied to coal fired plants, but like every way to combat either CO2, methane or or non-greenhouse gases is expensive and the people that own coal fired plants do not want to spend the money and have lobbied heavily against implementing any kind of controls or emission cleanup

my wife and i are doing what little we can by planting more trees, composting (a bit of a problem here as composting emits greenhouse gases), recycle, installed double pane windows and bought a hybrid (prius)

oh, we also use drip watering to conserve water and we use a septic system rather than sewer

we do not use the CFL bulbs as they contain mercury

i think that mankind is incapable of acting, as a whole, until it is too late, politicians are not willing to act in ways that people do not like

otoh, when the time is right, we will be installing solar panels to generate electricity

the solar cycle is certainly responsible for some of the global warming, but i doubt that it is the only cause - CO2 and methane (CH4) contribute, but how much?

we will eventually find out

we live in interesting times

That's nice Don and good for you on the things you are doing.
But those are things that are a luxury, most people can't afford to be that green, which is why government environmental policy should try to be avoided.
Instead try opting for more tax cuts, less government spending and less regulation that allows more people to be wealthy and be in a financial position where they can more afford to be green, just as Cali once did with more fiscally Conservative rule under Repubs.

[tinfoil]

how do the 'no global warming' folks explain the rising sea levels

LOL
now we know you are clueless. Nobody doubts there has been warming. The crux of the argument is about how much of the warming was caused by the 5% increase in CO2 concentration due to humans.

The radiative effect of CO2 concentration is a non-linear function. The first 10 parts per million (.000001 of the atmosphere OR .0001% of the atmosphere) accounts for 90% of the CO2 greenhouse effect . Saturation is reached by 400 PPM. There can be no significant increased CO2 greenhouse effect when the CO2 concentration is ALREADY REFLECTING NEAR 100% OF LONG WAVE RADIATION BACK TO EARTH.

If you have a mesh to collect sand being poured through it, the smaller the holes, the more sand you will prevent from slipping past. when approaching saturation level in CO2 concentration the space between CO2 molecules becomes small enough to catch(re-reflect actually) all of the long wave radiation reflecting off earth. It's not possible to stop more if your already effectively stopping all.

here's an easy way to understand
the increase of greenhouse effect from a concentration change from one to two part per million volume (ppmv) equals that of 280-560 ppmv or 1000-2000 ppmv.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWnonlinear.htm
It's got applets, sorry. I know, I hate java too. But if you're having a hard time picturing the non-linear relationship of CO2 concentrtion and the increased radiative effect of increases in CO2 concentration, it's a great learning tool.

[Don Quixote]

I think mankind contributes very little. Look back in history to what is known as "the little ice age" ...what did man do to cause that? Not a damn thing, Don! It was a natural climatic occurrence, and nothing we could have done would have stopped it. Look even further back to THE Ice Age... mankind wasn't even here! How did we manage to screw up the planet enough to cause that? We couldn't have, it is impossible, we weren't here! Now, jump ahead to the Industrial Age to 1971, when we enacted environmental standards... all of those years of dumping tons and tons of pollutants into our atmosphere, and what amount did we effectively change the climate of Earth? Did we not feel the profound effects of greenhouse gases because we didn't know about them yet? That makes no sense to me!

Don't take me wrong here, I realize there are things we do that don't exactly help the situation, and we should do whatever we can to avoid doing things that harm the environment, but I don't believe it is possible for us to destroy the planetary ecosystem, even if we tried. Nature could do it, and probably will do it eventually, that's the way the cookie crumbles. At some point in the future, our sun will burn out, a giant comet will careen into the Earth and destroy all life on the planet, a gamma ray burst will hit us, our solar system will be sucked into a black hole... plenty of shit can happen, but there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

there were a lot fewer of us then (little ice age) with 6 1/2 billion and growing, the impact becomes a wee bit more - but then not as much as a major volcanic eruption...however, with an eruption, it wears off, with us, it just keeps on growing

oh well

[Don Quixote]

LOL
now we know you are clueless. Nobody doubts there has been warming. The crux of the argument is about how much of the warming was caused by the 5% increase in CO2 concentration due to humans.

The radiative effect of CO2 concentration is a non-linear function. The first 10 parts per million (.000001 of the atmosphere OR .0001% of the atmosphere) accounts for 90% of the CO2 greenhouse effect . Saturation is reached by 400 PPM. There can be no significant increased CO2 greenhouse effect when the CO2 concentration is ALREADY REFLECTING NEAR 100% OF LONG WAVE RADIATION BACK TO EARTH.

If you have a mesh to collect sand being poured through it, the smaller the holes, the more sand you will prevent from slipping past. when approaching saturation level in CO2 concentration the space between CO2 molecules becomes small enough to catch(re-reflect actually) all of the long wave radiation reflecting off earth. It's not possible to stop more if your already effectively stopping all.

here's an easy way to understand
the increase of greenhouse effect from a concentration change from one to two part per million volume (ppmv) equals that of 280-560 ppmv or 1000-2000 ppmv.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWnonlinear.htm
It's got applets, sorry. I know, I hate java too. But if you're having a hard time picturing the non-linear relationship of CO2 concentrtion and the increased radiative effect of increases in CO2 concentration, it's a great learning tool.

i guess i studied calculus, physics, chemistry and statistics for nothing...you forgot to factor in the increase in methane (CH4)

the reality, apart from global warming, is that we are drowning in our own waste...check our population growth against the yeast growth law

who knows, maybe the increase in CO2 will be good for us, but the methane, i do not think so

but then in the long run we will all be dead...

i doubt that anything can or will be done, except run out of easily available hydrocarbons to burn...how is the supply of fissionable or fusionable materials

[uscitizen]

As/if the permafrost thaws vast amounts of methane will be released.