That bastion of integrity and wisdom. — Tzeentch

Lol. Yeah, it must not be happening. Keep plugging your eyes and ears — it’s fun to watch.

I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year. — Tzeentch

You should be sure— because they are. Hence why they’re retreating. See above. Also, it’s 10 millimeters, not 2. Sorry you can’t read.

Yeah. Thank god we have these climate scientists skeptical geniuses on the thread to inform us as to why there’s no reason to worry, and no reason to do anything. It’s not flooding where they live, so what’s the problem?

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.

I have some ability of course. I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. So I'm having to take someone else's word for it that there is in fact something going on. — Tzeentch

Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere.

Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere. — Janus

What mainly has to be taken into account is that so far it is mainly sea ice we have been losing, and sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels unless the ice is well grounded. Most of the small rise so far has been due to the expansion of water with rise of temperature, and some glacier loss. But it's only just begun.

Greenland ice is going to take some time to melt, but it is almost certainly going to melt. Those interested in fake physics will foolishly believe that melting ice absorbs a great deal of heat because of the latent heat associated with a change of state. Those doom merchants will think that there is another reason why things have not quite gotten as bad as they might otherwise have. Latent heat is one of those things they used to propagandise us with in physics lessons back in the 60's.

That seems right...ice absorbs less, and reflects more, heat than liquid water...the so-called "albedo effect:

The Greenland ice sheet may be even more sensitive to the warming climate than scientists previously thought.

A new study finds that rising air temperatures are working with warm ocean waters to speed the melting of Greenland’s seaside glaciers.

The findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, shed new light on the forces driving ice loss on the world’s second largest ice sheet.

The Greenland ice sheet is losing an average of around 250 billion metric tons of ice per year. These losses are speeding up over time, studies have found—and there are two main processes causing it.

Warm air temperatures cause melting to occur on the surface of the ice sheet—that process accounts for about half the ice Greenland loses each year. The other half comes from glaciers at the ice sheet’s edge crumbling into the sea.

Losses from these seaside glaciers have, until now, been mainly attributed to warm ocean waters licking at the edge of the ice. But the new research finds that rising air temperatures have a big influence as well.

Warm air causes the surface of the ice sheet to melt, and that meltwater then runs off into the ocean. When that happens, it churns up the waters—and that turbulence helps heat rise up from the depths of the ocean and warm up the waters coming into contact with the ice. That, in turn, melts the glaciers faster.

Lead study author Donald Slater, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh, likened the process to ice cubes in a glass of water. They clearly melt faster when the water is warmer. But they also melt faster when the water is stirred.

Rising air temperatures in Greenland “effectively result in a stirring of the ocean close to the ice sheet, causing faster melting of the ice sheet by the ocean,” he said in a statement.

The researchers used a combination of observations and models to investigate the melt rates at the edges of Greenland’s oceanfront glaciers, and then to tease out the roles of ocean versus atmosphere.

From here

That seems right...ice absorbs less, and reflects more, heat than liquid water...the so-called "albedo effect: — Janus

That's a separate thing, though also significant. The latent heat thing is that you have to add some heat to ice at 0°C to turn it into water at 0°C, and that extra energy is called latent heat. It is the energy required to break the chemical bonds that form the crystalline structure of ice. The same thing happens with boiling water. You have to keep adding heat to turn the water into vapour, and the water doesn't get any hotter, it just vaporises. That's why the potatoes don't burn until the pot has boiled dry.

So all the time extra energy is melting ice, that energy isn't raising the temperature. And there's lots of ice to melt. So it's only just begun.

The albedo change is a positive feedback loop that produces one of the notorious 'tipping points'. As ice melts, the planet darkens and absorbs more heat. It is generally accepted that we are heading for an ice free N.pole in summer, in a few years rather than a few decades. And then the Greenland ice sheet is going to be exposed on all sides and looking vey lonesome.

Thanks for the explanation—it seems I misunderstood your point, failing to realize you were being ironic with "fake physicists".

I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year.
— Tzeentch

You should be sure— because they are. Hence why they’re retreating. See above. Also, it’s 10 millimeters, not 2. Sorry you can’t read. — Mikie

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah. — Mikie

Is NASA a biased source?

Relying on nearly a 30-year record of satellite measurements, scientists have measured the rate of sea-level rise at 0.13 inches (3.4 millimeters) per year. — NASA

3.4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie.

Here is some information about long term rates of sea level rise.

Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year. — Wikipedia (IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers)

So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. How do the people who are concerned about sea level rise explain that?

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.
— Mikie

Is NASA a biased source? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, that was called satire. Not surprised you missed that.

4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie. — Agree-to-Disagree

No, the article cited, which he was responding to, was very clear: 10 mm. Sorry you can’t read.

Sea levels along coastlines from North Carolina to Texas have risen in excess of 10 millimeters a year (about a half inch) compared to an average of about 2 millimeters a year over the last century,

Also, even 3.4 (which is indeed accurate) is more than 2. So even with your adolescent attempts at a “gotcha” moment, you still look like an ignoramus.

Cool to see you never tire of embarrassing yourself though.

So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. — Agree-to-Disagree

Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018.

:roll: Good lord.

Might as well complete the article— because it is actually interesting for those interested in more than cherry picking to score points on the internet:

Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.[2] This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.[3] Climate change due to human activities is the main cause. Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of water accounted for 42% of sea level rise. Melting temperate glaciers accounted for 21%, with Greenland accounting for 15% and Antarctica 8%.[4]: 1576  Sea level rise lags changes in the Earth's temperature. So sea level rise will continue to accelerate between now and 2050 in response to warming that is already happening.[5] What happens after that will depend on what happens with human greenhouse gas emissions. Sea level rise may slow down between 2050 and 2100 if there are deep cuts in emissions. It could then reach a little over 30 cm (1 ft) from now by 2100. With high emissions it may accelerate. It could rise by 1 m (3+1⁄2 ft) or even 2 m (6+1⁄2 ft) by then.[6][7] In the long run, sea level rise would amount to 2–3 m (7–10 ft) over the next 2000 years if warming amounts to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). It would be 19–22 metres (62–72 ft) if warming peaks at 5 °C (9.0 °F).[6]: 21 

Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific[2] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[3][4][5]

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[6][7][8] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[9] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[10][11] pseudoscience,[12] or propaganda.[13]

Fits several of our visitors on this thread to a tee. Worth posting occasionally.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018. — Mikie

So when did global warming start?

Let's try another approach. The big oil companies have billions of dollars at their disposal. They can afford to hire any number of top climatologists. If they could demonstrate - using good science - that

- Global warming is not happening at all
- It's happening but it's caused by some hitherto unknown natural phenomena

that person or persons would become among the most famous scientists who ever lived. Why have they (big oil companies) not done this?

So when did global warming start? — Agree-to-Disagree

Anthropogenic climate change, which is what this thread is about, is the result of human activities— namely, pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in enormous quantities. Particularly the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

The burning of coal, oil, and gas was a major part of the Industrial Revolution, of course. That’s roughly 1750-onward.

Eh…nevermind. It’s not happening. Or rather the climate always changes and the science isn’t clear. Or whatever.

Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere. — Janus

I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.

Sorry about that. It's frustrating dealing with the global scepticism at times.

I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust. — Tzeentch

Here is where i have a problem with trusting you and the honesty of your scepticism. When I look at the venality of academia, I see three possibilities.

First, a systematic distortion produced by vested interests with power and money is possible and has happened. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, big Defence. There is no Big Wind, or Big Solar, so I discount that in this case, only the opposite distortion by Big Oil is remotely likely and the evidence of their activity is not hard to find and works to undermine and minimise, not to exaggerate.

Second, there is a natural tendency for any discipline to big itself up and make itself important. But geologists and climate scientists already have a massive market for their ideas and predictions in the commercial field, and are not making themselves popular with predictions of collapse. On the contrary, the more pessimistic predictors are losing their jobs.

Third, there is always a market on the internet for the odd maverick or contrarian feeding any conspiracy theory, or other special interest. But this of its nature cannot apply to the consensus of climate scientists.

So I am asking you for a proper justification of your scepticism in this case, rather than just innuendo. Who is distorting and why is it so widespread and systematic, and how is it profiting anyone?

Astronomy is complicated, hard to understand and based on indirect and estimated measurement, extrapolating from sparse evidence using complicated statistics. These are reasons to be cautious and flexible about its findings, but one does not hear accusations of grift about the big bang or cosmic inflation.

It's frustrating dealing with the global scepticism at times. — unenlightened

Is this because you think we need a democratic initiative to find a solution, so skepticism diminishes our efforts?

Or is it just that skepticism itself is irritating? Or both?

This is excellent. Well said sir.

But don’t you know it’s about control, and that the big Green lobby stands to make billions— and Bill Gates and George Soros and scientists have been wrong before and Greta Thunberg is a patsy and so on…

Here is a village local to me, where the sea defences are not going to be raised, and where one cannot get a mortgage. Over on the east coast of England, there are problems with coastal erosion, but this is sea level rise pure and simple. There are of course atolls and deltas already suffering devastation elsewhere, but it's somehow more real when it happens to decent civilised property owning people like us.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/11/residents-defiant-as-village-set-to-be-abandoned-to-rising-sea-levels-15582361/

I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust. — Tzeentch

I'm guessing a lot of people are in this situation.

It’s happening all around us, constantly — and trusting a graph doesn’t require much strain.

But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment.

But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment. — Mikie

Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow:

Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow: — Tzeentch

Not at all. Just seems to me for someone claiming such skepticism about institutions, that skepticism about the propaganda of oil companies seems disproportionately thin.

What the oil companies believe or say has nothing to do with my views. But a cute attempt.

What the oil companies believe or say has nothing to do with my views. But a cute attempt. — Tzeentch

Yet you repeat their propaganda verbatim. What a coincidence.

But anyway, you missed the point entirely. I’m not shocked.

You can't identify single incidents like this, or look at a single graph, or look at this year's weather and decide what the climate is doing. The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables. — frank

Yes of course. Us peons couldn't possibly understand the the variable approximations of numerous models that get averaged out to give us a low resolution picture of how the climate will have changed in 100 years. Yes, we should just shut up when the politicians interpret all this hyper-accurate data and accept whatever they tell us. I'm sure there is no ulterior agenda.

The proximal vector in the multiplexed zone retraces the inferior Fibonacci levels to localize on the scale of dimensional applications.

Good analysis!

The proximal vector in the multiplexed zone retraces the inferior Fibonacci levels to localize on the scale of dimensional applications. — frank

I have never heard such a precise and clear explanation of the weather. Does this apply to the fluid dynamics of both clouds and water vapor?

The Little Ice Age

how is it applied specifically to the current trend of climate change?