The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=11%2C000+scientists+online+poll

The Alliance of World Scientists is a web page of a OSU professor. You can't be a scientist there because they closed the poll.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

In "primitive times", the move would have been a normal part of life as permanence of settlement wasn't a thing for these and other peoples.

I grew up on a Pacific island where we lived in a bamboo and thatched hut. We had flooding and earthquakes and storms. People simply moved and rebuilt somewhere else.

Sea levels are rising, and have been rising even before there was this idea of AGW. It has happened before and will again. People will adjust. The difference is that we now have billions of people living along waterways. But the slow pace of sea level rise will allow people to adjust. As we always have.

'Slow pace' isn't part of the climate models.There are 'threshold systems,' which once they go,we'll have rapid sea level rise nobody will be able to adjust to,other than migrate, inland,if they can,abandoning $billions in infrastructure.The velocity of accelerating warming will increase as Earth's albedo deteriorates further,setting up runaway warming, ad infinitum.We're already locked in to around 80-feet of sea level rise due to greenhouse gas concentrations,which continue to grow.Ocean acidification.
The marine food chain will be pushed closer to collapse,and we'll see even lower atmospheric Oxygen content,just to name a few inconveniences.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

And...???

Things change...



Bering Strait Land Bridge

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...g-ice-age.html


Your post is pointless...

Everything changes...

According to your prospective we should still have a land bridge.

I wonder if they b*tched about disappearing land back then...???

I can see it now...

Extra Extra

Read all about it...

Man causing land bridge to disappear...




18,000 years from now we’ll see it as natural progression... Again...


Long term studies have that effect.




>

The opening of the Arctic Ocean isn't germane to climate change.That's not the same planet we live on today.
Plate tectonics is well understood,continuously monitored,and geologists/lithosphere scientists know exactly, the rates of movement.
We're not concerned with anything other than the last 11,000 years.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Renewable power that was made with fossil fuels

Like all fossil-fuels that was made from renewable energy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Climate studies is a popular thing. Using the Cray computer on the University of California San Diego campus to model climate is one of the classes students will go through. Even then, 30 year windows are used to smooth data. Look up the texts. Go take the classes. Then come back and tell me not to use academic definitions of "climate" and "weather" interchangeably - as you have done.

And I believe in global warming. A late old friend told me stories of her time as a navy wife in San Diego during WW2. She told of me stories where October and November would bring snow to the beaches. These are the same beaches my wife runs around in, in a tiny two piece playing beach volleyball with her girlfriends, today.

This time period I am speaking of would be barely 3 points on a graph of climate change. The extreme oscillations from such a graph would warrant the application of more techniques to divine some conclusion. Those techniques are the issue. You can take the same raw data and apply different methods to come to differing conclusions.

You may be sure of your conclusions. But the science of this subject is truthfully much less settled and should be open to debate.

To keep apples,apples,the students would use the same models the climatologists used,which would incorporate the same statistical tools.Given the same database as the climatologists used,the output would have to be identical,model for model.
Different 'methods' would yield different results,but the students would have to defend their arguments in peer-review,if they were claiming different conclusions based on the same data.
If you try and cook the books,you'll have your family jewels raked across hot coals.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I hear plants like 1500ppm CO2.

That's called uniformitarianism as oppose to catastrophism. There is a tension between the two. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=catastrophism+vs+uniformitarianism

Once you go down the Catastrophism rabbithole, you find that when the Bosphorus was breached, the rising water advanced at a walking pace. But you know that since the ground isn't flat it was like the ending of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.

AGWD. heh.

That would not square with the facts.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Last interglacial period, the waters rose some 6m higher than now in Belgium

Where I live, was flooded back then
Shark teeth have been found here
As well as a complete mammoth skeleton from the last Ice age

We are again in a warm interglacial period, and likely nearing the maximum of it (least ice)

So , wether you want to believe the gospel of Global Warming or not
It's gonna get hotter
And the sea is going to rise

And no-one, no climate pact, no climate activist nor denier will stop that ...



As these areas were before ...
If they even existed as quite a few are of volcanic nature - they literally come and go


Greatest contributor isn't CO2, it's water vapour ...

The rub is,that a 1 degree-C temperature rise,increases atmospheric water vapor content by 7%, amplifying warming.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by litesong

Nah. SLR was really mellowing out after the ice ages. But along came man-unkind, with its newfangled wild & wide-spread industry, pumping fossil fuel GHG infra-red energy absorbing emissions into the air. Oh, then the Earth bio-sphere started heating up.

Our Belgian North Sea coast was straightened and impoldered in the early Middle Ages
(even the English term comes from our "inpolderen")
Islands in front of and along today's coast, have gone, swallowed by the sea

Locally, mean sea level has risen over 2m since Jesus Christ claimed to walk on water
Without much antropogenic input (the rise, dunno about JC's act ...)

Pretty fast hu


Doggersbank -look it up- was an island not that long ago
Fishermen went there before it dipped under the sea
Later they went there, because the fishing was good


The water WILL come, no matter what ...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They are figuring out how to get their piece of the climate change pie.

That would be a good thing,yes?
The Fed chairman is appointed by the US President (the smartest guy who ever lived), and all the board members are chosen by private banks (certainly the remainder of the smartest guys on Earth),which also own shares in the institution.Capitalism!
By June,2010,the Fed had earned $13.7-billion for the US taxpayers,from the 2008 US Govt. bailout of JP Morgan Chase,Bank of America,Citibank,Wachovia,HSBC,AIG,Wells Fargo,Goldman Sachs,Morgan Stanley,General Motors,General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC),and Chrysler Corporation.
It's exciting when the Fed makes me money!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Not only that, but it isn't 100% renewable energy either. They may purchase an equivalent in renewable energy generation, but their actual delivered electricity sometimes comes from non-renewables when demand and nature don't align perfectly, which is constantly.

In other words, if everyone followed suit, we'd just have intermittent electricity since there'd be no variable non-renewables to smooth things out.



No, they can exist in just zoos for all I care. They've been trying to go extinct for some time now.

A slower pace of CO2 rise would be much easier for the world's organisms to adapt to though, so on that point I'd agree.

And the renewables they purchase when their fossil-fueled power stations go down for annual scheduled maintenance isn't 100% fossil? Like coal-fired power plants,which are down 28% of the time?