Davos speaker calls for one billion people to stop eating meat, for the environment

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. That's not the way professionals bet though and they are around.

2. If you use the last hundred years of real world data you're going to get Six years per century to Eight using a period from 1993 . At one time I used to just see 7 per century as the estimate of current rise but those seem to have disappeared. Nevertheless 6 to 8 remains seven as far as I'm concerned.

1. Okay, well I know more about climate science than the track. You used an analogy that was a poor fit and so I played it.

2. Yes but sea level rise is accelerating. That's well known and documented. They even took that into consideration in the early part of the century, and they underestimated.

[reason10]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

She's RIGHT and YOU'RE the TOP TROLL who doesn't know the difference between CO2 from biological processes and fossil fuels.

Here's a clue for YOU: biological CO2 like that from termites, is continually RECYCLED and DOES NOT increase the concentration in the atmosphere like burning fossil fuels does.

Bet you STILL don't understand the difference. LMAO

You have provided ZERO documentation to support that lie, YOU FCKING TROLL.

I have.

[reason10]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Okay, well I know more about climate science than the track. You used an analogy that was a poor fit and so I played it.

2. Yes but sea level rise is accelerating. That's well known and documented. They even took that into consideration in the early part of the century, and they underestimated.

For the past twenty years I have worked closely on the Florida Gulf coast. Had the sea levels risen an INCH, I would have seen it. There would have been articles all over the place in every newspaper in Florida.

The levels today are the same as they were at the turn of the century. For that matter they are the same as they were at the turn of the 20th Century.

Algore was wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Reference - Sea Level Rise in Florida (references from NOAA data)

https://sealevelrise.org/states/florida/#:~:text=When the ocean rises high,352% across Florida since 2000.

 

[Nationalist]

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390729-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-the-rising-sea-level/

For those poor souls who are scared of sea levels rising. Nothing you impose on the western world will stop less that a foot or sea level rise this century. Some additional sand and rock is going to get wet.

Your solution has been to punish western nations with doomsday predictions and imposed restrictions of the world's current source of energy. This has caused all sorts of hardship and suffering world wide. Yet...the outcome is already determined. So why do climate religious people keep punishing humanity?

Hate...for humanity. 

We could research and find a replacement energy source if we wanted to. Man is rather good at problem solving. But the climate religion dictates that instead...we all must suffer an a lot of us must die.

I have faith in Man that, given time and funding, we'd find that golden goose the climate religious howl for immediately. 

But the climate religious are now scared and prone to panic...and the leaders of their religion see an opportunity to cash in. To consolidate wealth and power.

Hatred for the human race.

Wakey wakey humans...

Edited January 25, 2023 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

 For those poor souls who are scared of sea levels rising. 

Inland poster here.  Not afraid, but I am just trying to get straight what people who post disinfo then refuse to retract it are afraid of.

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Inland poster here.  Not afraid, but I am just trying to get straight what people who post disinfo then refuse to retract it are afraid of.

Like? For instance?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Like? For instance?

Well... a poster says "I know that sea level rising, because I look at it with my eyes" and I produce NOAA data done with measurement tools.  

Would you expect the first poster to say "oh, right... thanks, my error" ?  I kind of would because that's what I would do.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... a poster says "I know that sea level rising, because I look at it with my eyes" and I produce NOAA data done with measurement tools.  

Would you expect the first poster to say "oh, right... thanks, my error" ?  I kind of would because that's what I would do.

What?

A person says I know the sea level is rising because I see it. You produce supporting data.

What error has the first poster made?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What?

A person says I know the sea level is rising because I see it. You produce supporting data.

What error has the first poster made?

Sorry I made the error, my example should have said that the initial poster says it ISN'T rising. Sloppy on my part.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry I made the error, my example should have said that the initial poster says it ISN'T rising. Sloppy on my part.

OK. And who is telling you they don't see...or know...the sea levels are rising?

[Rebound]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What?

A person says I know the sea level is rising because I see it. You produce supporting data.

What error has the first poster made?

Your friend Reason10 wrote:

”For the past twenty years I have worked closely on the Florida Gulf coast. Had the sea levels risen an INCH, I would have seen it.”

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Rebound said:

Your friend Reason10 wrote:

”For the past twenty years I have worked closely on the Florida Gulf coast. Had the sea levels risen an INCH, I would have seen it.”

Nationalist likely has them on ignore.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your friend Reason10 wrote:

”For the past twenty years I have worked closely on the Florida Gulf coast. Had the sea levels risen an INCH, I would have seen it.”

Has the sea level risen an inch in the last 20 years? If it has, reason10 missed it...and I would understand that as 1 inch is not a lot. If is has only risen a few centimeters...then again, quite understandable.

Also...as "mature" adults, we should recognize that these vaunted institutions who tell us these things...have lost all credibility by now.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nationalist likely has them on ignore.

I don't put anyone on "ignore" Mike. I face opposition head on.

How 'bout you?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 How 'bout you?

Yes I have lots of people on ignore.

I'm busy so it helps me focus on people who are interesting to talk to.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes I have lots of people on ignore.

I'm busy so it helps me focus on people who are interesting to talk to.

Understood.

 

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yes but sea level rise is accelerating. That's well known and documented. They even took that into consideration in the early part of the century, and they underestimated.I

There have been recent periods of acceleration. Find a graph. It goes up and it goes down. I believe it's been slowing down the last couple of years, hasn't it?

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Has the sea level risen an inch in the last 20 years? If it has, reason10 missed it...and I would understand that as 1 inch is not a lot. If is has only risen a few centimeters...then again, quite understandable.

Also...as "mature" adults, we should recognize that these vaunted institutions who tell us these things...have lost all credibility by now.

Looking out the window is not evidence, particularly in a tidal system. This what people who actually measure this stuff say.

NASA

 

Quote

Global sea level is rising approximately 0.13 inches (3.3 millimeters) a year. That’s 30% more than when NASA launched its first satellite mission to measure ocean heights in 1992.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Aristides

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

There have been recent periods of acceleration. Find a graph. It goes up and it goes down. I believe it's been slowing down the last couple of years, hasn't it?

I think I posted a graph.  There are localized ups and downs as with temperature, ice sheet melt, and anything in nature really.  Slowed acceleration still means the levels are rising at an increasing rate though.

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Looking out the window is not evidence, particularly in a tidal system. This what people who actually measure this stuff say.

NASA

Lets assume NASA can be trusted and the oceans have risen 3 inches over the last 30-some odd years.

At this rate, I'd guess the USA has about 200 years before things get...flooded.

I would also guess that in 200 years, Man is capable of finding a reasonable replacement for the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

Wouldn't you?

[Aristides]

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lets assume NASA can be trusted and the oceans have risen 3 inches over the last 30-some odd years.

At this rate, I'd guess the USA has about 200 years before things get...flooded.

I would also guess that in 200 years, Man is capable of finding a reasonable replacement for the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

Wouldn't you?

NASA has been measuring this with satellites for more than 30 years. 0.13 inches per year means 1.3 inches every ten years at the present rate, which is 30% faster than 20 years ago. If it keeps accelerating at that rate it in 20 years it will be .17 inches a year  and in 200 years it will be increasing at a rate of almost 4 inches a year, but we know now that the rate of acceleration is not linear, it is increasing, 

If the rate is increasing at a rate of 1 inch every 10 years, that will mean 4 inches in the next 30 years and 5.2 inches in the next 30 years. In 200 years that would mean a total rise of 19 inches but we know the rate isn't linear.  The recent study of glacial melt in Greenland found the undermining of the large glaciers by warm sea water is causing them to melt at a much faster rate than was thought.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Aristides

[CrakHoBarbie]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

.

The levels today are the same as they were at the turn of the century. For that matter they are the same as they were at the turn of the 20th Century.

 

How is it, with the World at your fingertips, you still manage to be so poorly informed? Oh..... That's right..... Your a profoundly stupid person....

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://sealevelrise.org/states/florida/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjpwbHdlOP8AhU2HkQIHfe3AxsQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw047p7M9PRWdX7DeQus1D82

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

For the past twenty years I have worked closely on the Florida Gulf coast. Had the sea levels risen an INCH, I would have seen it. There would have been articles all over the place in every newspaper in Florida.

The levels today are the same as they were at the turn of the century. For that matter they are the same as they were at the turn of the 20th Century.

Algore was wrong.

False. NOAA said that sea levels rose 1 foot in the last 100 years and will ride another foot by 2050.

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/us-coastline-to-see-up-to-foot-of-sea-level-rise-by-2050

NOAA is packed with career PhD’s who study satellite data. They’re the best of the best. They are civil servants who have no vested interest in anything besides publishing factual scientific data. 
 

“By 2050, moderate flooding ⁠— which is typically disruptive and damaging by today’s weather, sea level and infrastructure standards ⁠— is expected to occur more than 10 times as often as it does today,” said Nicole LeBoeuf, NOAA National Ocean Service Director. “These numbers mean a change from a single event every 2-5 years to multiple events each year, in some places.” 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

NOAA is packed with career PhD’s who study satellite data. They’re the best of the best. They are civil servants who have no vested interest in anything besides publishing factual scientific data. 
 

Also important to point out that Al Gore is a spokesperson, and a politician.  There's no science being generated by this person.

Think Hannity.  Just a talking head.