As climate change floods Florida, Marco Rubio refuses to acknowledge science

a reply to: amazing

Pundits and agenda-driven media outlets are not scientists. And even scientists can be wrong. Every single advancement you mentioned above was brought about by questioning something another scientist said.

So when someone starts saying we shouldn't question science, yeah, that immediately makes them unscientific.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I wonder why we are finding ancient civilizations, now completely submerged? They must have had some serious pollution going on.


Do we need to clean up our mess? Of course we do.

Do I feel sorry for idiots who build their homes on the beach? Nope.

This has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, long after we are dead. And we seriously need to stop playing chicken with mother nature. We will lose.

Yes, sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years, however, it has been a very gradual increase. Yet, the last 20 years have seen dramatic increases in yearly heat indexes. More heat=more evaporation which eventually leads to stronger storms, more erosion, diminished food supply(ies), an uptick in viruses, destruction of habitats, etc.

Ironically, these things happen in waves. Not saying that we need to cut all emissions tomorrow but to deny that there's too much carbon in the atmosphere is irresponsible if you ask me.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

Pundits and agenda-driven media outlets are not scientists. And even scientists can be wrong. Every single advancement you mentioned above was brought about by questioning something another scientist said.

So when someone starts saying we shouldn't question science, yeah, that immediately makes them unscientific.

TheRedneck

Except that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Scientists, support personnel, students, interns, and researchers studying different aspects of climate (historical and current), weather, the environment, The ocean, the atmosphere, temperature, C02 levels and much more and they're all communicating, writing papers, discussing, argumenting and questioning each other so that our understanding of the Climate continues to progress. So yeah, I'm listening to what they say.

Right wing blogs and websites and news sources funded by oil and coal companies aren't reliable outlets for Climate science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chiefsmom

This has been going on for thousands of years,

Not really. Sea levels, like temperatures had been fairly stable for thousands of years.

Sea Level Rise

I am confused now. I learned that we have found ancient civilizations just off the coast that used to be above water, but are now submerged. The PBS show stated plainly that sea levels have been rising steadily for I believe 30,000 years, but the number is not really relevant as long as it's over 300 years.

Now either that show was complete bull# and they manufactured the evidence of lost cities, or your data might not include all the factors beyond the scope of AGW.

I trust your data and usually must agree with your findings, however uncomfortable they might be. But is there any chance you might be missing something here?

a reply to: amazing

you are free to swallow any load thrown at you from "the AGW crowd". But others will question things, dig for data to back up their theories, and learn things along the way. They may end up believing the exact thing you do now, but they will have found that answer on their own, and will fully understand why they believe what they do. I think it's kind of sad to just accept things at face value when there is so much we as a planet don't know.

How much does the Sun affect the global climate?
How much exactly does man contribute to the current warming?
How high can the Atlantic Ocean rise based on a 20 year period?

I realize these questions cannot be definitively answered right now. But that is kind of the point. We have a lot to learn about a lot of things, so to make idiotic statements like "the science it settled" as some have said, it just plain wrong.

a reply to: amazing

Actually, no, there's maybe a few thousand. And that's probably stretching things; climate science is a fairly new field.

The vast majority of scientific papers are trying to understand climatology. Science works on experimentation. Scientists observe, speculate, formulate hypotheses, and then experiment to prove or disprove their hypotheses based on assumptions. The vast majority of disagreement is in the assumptions made. Newton published his Laws of Motion based on an assumption that all motion was relevant to matter only. Einstein challenged that and developed relativity based on an assumption that matter and energy were related, and thus both were subject to motion. Someday someone may challenge one of his assumptions and go further in our understanding.

So far, the predictions made (the experiments) have failed (been less than accurate). That means the hypotheses they were based on are inaccurate or incomplete. We may indeed be heading toward a climate catastrophe, but so far none of the models have proven themselves accurate enough to make such a prediction with any degree of reasonable certainty. So far, they can't accurately recreate the past without skewing data, much less predict the future.

When the models start agreeing with observations without skewing data, when their predictions make sense taken along with other areas of knowledge, then I'll start listening to them. Until then, they are simply tests in an attempt to learn how the climate works. They are not something to get upset or concerned over.

And certainly not something to destroy millions of livelihoods and an entire global economy over.

Right wing blogs and websites and news sources funded by oil and coal companies aren't reliable outlets for Climate science.

You're right. But also left wing blogs and websites and news sources funded by politicians are in the same category. There's corruption on both sides, as is usually the case in reality.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

Actually, no, there's maybe a few thousand. And that's probably stretching things; climate science is a fairly new field.

The vast majority of scientific papers are trying to understand climatology. Science works on experimentation. Scientists observe, speculate, formulate hypotheses, and then experiment to prove or disprove their hypotheses based on assumptions. The vast majority of disagreement is in the assumptions made. Newton published his Laws of Motion based on an assumption that all motion was relevant to matter only. Einstein challenged that and developed relativity based on an assumption that matter and energy were related, and thus both were subject to motion. Someday someone may challenge one of his assumptions and go further in our understanding.

So far, the predictions made (the experiments) have failed (been less than accurate). That means the hypotheses they were based on are inaccurate or incomplete. We may indeed be heading toward a climate catastrophe, but so far none of the models have proven themselves accurate enough to make such a prediction with any degree of reasonable certainty. So far, they can't accurately recreate the past without skewing data, much less predict the future.

When the models start agreeing with observations without skewing data, when their predictions make sense taken along with other areas of knowledge, then I'll start listening to them. Until then, they are simply tests in an attempt to learn how the climate works. They are not something to get upset or concerned over.

And certainly not something to destroy millions of livelihoods and an entire global economy over.

Right wing blogs and websites and news sources funded by oil and coal companies aren't reliable outlets for Climate science.

You're right. But also left wing blogs and websites and news sources funded by politicians are in the same category. There's corruption on both sides, as is usually the case in reality.

TheRedneck

When you put in all the related fields such as atmospheric, oceanographers, volcanologist , geologists, astrophysicists, biologists, meterologists any many others all do research that is related to climatology. They all share information provide data for each other. So in essence there are probably millions of people studying climate change.

I disagree that all of the models and predictions are wrong. Show me where you found that. I just read an article this morning, not from a left wing news source, that said most climate change models are evolving and getting more precise and that even before this most of the models were fairly accurate and were based off of good, sound science.

But still most scientists in any field are theorizing or agreeing with or coming up with their own conclusions that man is changing the climate through his actions, irregardless of any other natural cycle we may be going through. Again, I'm going with what most scientists and scientific organizations tell me.

I'm just talking about science not about disrupting industries, what does thousands of people losing jobs have to do with Science and data? However, as with every step in our evolution as a species, people will lose jobs. They lost jobs with the invention of the assembly line, and with the invention of the printing press, and at the end of every war, and think of all the blacksmiths that lost jobs with the invention of the automobile. As with all things, humans will adapt. You may say, then why wont' they adapt to a warming climate. I would say, try spending a summer in Vegas and you'll see the problem with that assumption.

a reply to: amazing

When you put in all the related fields such as atmospheric, oceanographers, volcanologist , geologists, astrophysicists, biologists, meterologists any many others all do research that is related to climatology. They all share information provide data for each other. So in essence there are probably millions of people studying climate change.

That's stretching things a bit. Why not include engineers as well?

I disagree that all of the models and predictions are wrong. Show me where you found that. I just read an article this morning, not from a left wing news source, that said most climate change models are evolving and getting more precise and that even before this most of the models were fairly accurate and were based off of good, sound science.

Show me one that has been proven accurate. The burden of proof of accuracy lies with the researcher.

And of course they're getting better! No one is disputing that. We're getting better at rocketry too, but so far we can't get people to Alpha Centauri. We're getting better at genetics too, but so far we haven't actually engineered a higher life-form from scratch. Maybe some day, maybe soon even, they will get a model that shows to be accurate. Then we can start getting serious with the experiments: what will the average global temperature read in a year? Ten years? What will the effects on oceanic currents? If we can answer some questions like those, and have observation bear out the prediction, then we've got something.

But still most scientists in any field are theorizing or agreeing with or coming up with their own conclusions that man is changing the climate through his actions, irregardless of any other natural cycle we may be going through. Again, I'm going with what most scientists and scientific organizations tell me.

I would be willing to bet good money that you are hearing this from media, not from scientists. Pop-sci has taken over the field outside research laboratories. It is to science what the MSM is to news... spin, twist, stretch, to get readers' attention and sell.

I'm just talking about science not about disrupting industries, what does thousands of people losing jobs have to do with Science and data?

See, there's the rub. It shouldn't. And that is exactly why I went from believing the hype to believing the hype is just hype.

If a scientist tells me they think carbon dioxide in emissions are causing a greenhouse effect and they are conducting experiments to determine if it does, I'm interested. I want to track their progress and see what they discover. But when a scientist tells me they think we need to place a taxation scheme on energy production, then I stop and take 27 steps back. Something is seriously wrong with that, because a true scientist isn't worried about taxes! He's interested in funding his research so he can make discoveries. If he wants to support a tax plan based on his research, then he just became a politician. If he wants to do all that and his research isn't completed yet, he's a lying politician.

That's where we are with this discussion. I stand by every argument I have put forth. If there is Global Warming occurring, it is NOT because of carbon dioxide. Those telling me it is are either not scientists, in an unrelated field, or are pressing a financial agenda.

It is not possible to burn any carbon-based fuel in an oxygen-rich environment without creating carbon dioxide. All of our plentiful fuels are carbon based (hydrocarbons). No other energy production technology capable of powering our society in full has been shown to be viable (although there are some that are promising). So any taxation on carbon dioxide becomes in essence a tax on energy. Taxation of a product reduces the availability of that product; that is an ancient accounting principle that has been proven over and over throughout history and has never been disproven. Less energy means less jobs, less income, less technology, less advancement, and more poverty.

Anyone who advocates for a carbon dioxide taxation mechanism, be it cap-and-trade or any other method, is advocating for poverty. That is a fact. I could understand such an advocation if the planet was in real danger from the carbon dioxide, but it isn't. It's just another attempt to separate people from their money. If it was anything else, the research into carbon dioxide scrubbers would receive much more favorable coverage.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As a layman example, consider a large aquarium with a heater at one end: as the heater heats the water in that end, does the water level change only where the heater is? Or does it change uniformly throughout the aquarium?

Oceans are not an aquarium. Sea level is not as flat as you seem to think it is.
sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov...

The water around Miami would be boiling after a few hours of that.

What?

Can we talk about how carbon dioxide is changing the planet's rotation now?

That would seem to be a strawman argument, since I did not make that claim. I said that the Earth's rotation has an effect on the distribution of sea level, I did not say that CO2 is changing the planet's rotation. You know that bit of a bulge in the geoid, the one near the equator? Think about that and how it may affect water.

Here's some more to chew on:
e360.yale.edu...

a reply to: Phage

Oceans are not an aquarium. Sea level is not as flat as you seem to think it is.

Firstly, water is water. Liquid is liquid. It doesn't act differently just because it's inside a glass box.

Secondly, I never said sea level was perfectly flat. We have tides caused by the moon's gravitational pull, waves caused by the interaction with wind and other disturbances, and yes, an equatorial bulge caused by centripetal force.

None of these cause sea level rise.

Sea level rise is a change in sea level. If that change is due to tidal forces, the source is the moon, not carbon dioxide. The result will be global, not local to Miami. If that change is due to waves, it is caused by wind or displacement, not carbon dioxide. If that change is related to the equatorial bulge, check the rotation of the planet, not carbon dioxide.

None of these will affect global sea level, either. They are zero-sum. If the high tides get higher, the low tides get lower. If the equatorial bulge increases, sea level at the poles will fall in proportion.

All of them are strawmen.

You're stuck on proving sea level rise that doesn't exist, and disproving subsidence of Miami coastlines. You can link all the studies and pop-sci reports you want; unless you can show me average sea level rise in Norway, Alaska, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Carolina, California, Guatemala, and every single coastline around the globe, you have not shown sea level rise.

TheRedneck

Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon

originally posted by: abe froman
If you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, does the level of water go up or down?

Oh I guess ignorance is going to rear its ugly head.

Define:
-ice water
-glass

Because ice on land is not in water; ice melting from land into the water is what's happening.

So, what happens if you take your idiotic analogy and add new ice to your water?

What then, Sherlock?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

Pundits and agenda-driven media outlets are not scientists. And even scientists can be wrong. Every single advancement you mentioned above was brought about by questioning something another scientist said.

So when someone starts saying we shouldn't question science, yeah, that immediately makes them unscientific.

TheRedneck

Do you question how greenhouse effect?
Do you question how greenhouse gases redistribute heat in the atmosphere?
Do you question spectroscopic analysis of CO2, showing that it is a greenhouse gas?

One can literally go buy an IR device and see the effect in action.

a reply to: TheRedneck

None of these cause sea level rise.

I didn't say they do. You claimed that if sea levels were rising the effects would be uniform across the planet. That is false.

None of these will affect global sea level, either. They are zero-sum. If the high tides get higher, the low tides get lower. If the equatorial bulge increases, sea level at the poles will fall in proportion.

Yes. If everything else remains equal. But that is not the case. Thermal expansion causes increased volume of seawater. Glacial melt causes increased volume of seawater.

You can link all the studies and pop-sci reports you want; unless you can show me average sea level rise in Norway, Alaska, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Carolina, California, Guatemala, and every single coastline around the globe, you have not shown sea level rise.

Average sea level is rising.

As was pointed out, coastlines both subside and uplift, so showing sea level rise compared to particular coastlines won't give you that information. For example, much of Alaska is experiencing isostatic rebound. The coastline is rising faster than sea level is so tide gauges (without corrections) show levels falling.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...


However, satellite data records actual sea levels, not changes in comparison to land. And it shows that the average sea level is rising.
climate.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Oceans are not an aquarium. Sea level is not as flat as you seem to think it is.

Firstly, water is water. Liquid is liquid. It doesn't act differently just because it's inside a glass box.

Secondly, I never said sea level was perfectly flat. We have tides caused by the moon's gravitational pull, waves caused by the interaction with wind and other disturbances, and yes, an equatorial bulge caused by centripetal force.

None of these cause sea level rise.

Sea level rise is a change in sea level. If that change is due to tidal forces, the source is the moon, not carbon dioxide. The result will be global, not local to Miami. If that change is due to waves, it is caused by wind or displacement, not carbon dioxide. If that change is related to the equatorial bulge, check the rotation of the planet, not carbon dioxide.

None of these will affect global sea level, either. They are zero-sum. If the high tides get higher, the low tides get lower. If the equatorial bulge increases, sea level at the poles will fall in proportion.

All of them are strawmen.

You're stuck on proving sea level rise that doesn't exist, and disproving subsidence of Miami coastlines. You can link all the studies and pop-sci reports you want; unless you can show me average sea level rise in Norway, Alaska, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Carolina, California, Guatemala, and every single coastline around the globe, you have not shown sea level rise.

Sea level rise doesn't exist?

What the hell universe do you live in?

You can look all over the #ing tidal gauge records and see it yourself, or cry and bitch and moan that it's all a lie for some nonsensical reason.

Why would the historical tidal gauge records lie? You know, since tidal records have been around for a long damn time and they've been rising for a long damn time, too - the one at Brest, France has been measuring since 1711.

You know what it says? That sea level rise has been accelerating in the short-term from the lower long-term rate of rise. No sea level rise my ass.

And yeah, gauges being bound to land are limited and affected by uplift and subsidence - but hey, on average they say the oceans are rising.
e: As Phage correctly points out, satellites are not bound by such limitations. Stop arguing against the truth. Stop embracing lies. Or keep wallowing in ignorance and helping to destroy this planet. We'll all be dead before everything goes to pot, so why bother huh?

originally posted by: lostbook

More heat=more evaporation.

Then you also have evaporation in much colder, very large regions that returns water back to a solid, happens each year, pretty quickly too.
Given that, it could thousands of years anything man could do to make a difference. Plus the dynamics of each pole, in which the Antarctic is a deal colder than the Arctic. As for Florida, it's coast is tipping down anyway, but you ignored that...obviously.
Eustatic change in sea level, is the name given to a job that is a calculation of well, (a quote from Wiki) "results in an alteration to the global sea levels due to changes in either the volume of water in the world's oceans or net changes in the volume of the ocean basins" So, it's pretty much an estimate on God knows what given the parameters, since the Earths total dynamics at any given time are not the same, and best guess there is the difference to being in a traffic jam or driving home at night.
So, if you are a lifeguard on Miami beach, my best guess is to carry on with your career, even if the son of a beach is tipping down.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: lostbook

More heat=more evaporation.

Then you also have evaporation in much colder, very large regions that returns water back to a solid, happens each year, pretty quickly too.
Given that, it could thousands of years anything man could do to make a difference. Plus the dynamics of each pole, in which the Antarctic is a deal colder than the Arctic. As for Florida, it's coast is tipping down anyway, but you ignored that...obviously.
Eustatic change in sea level, is the name given to a job that is a calculation of well, (a quote from Wiki) "results in an alteration to the global sea levels due to changes in either the volume of water in the world's oceans or net changes in the volume of the ocean basins" So, it's pretty much an estimate on God knows what given the parameters, since the Earths total dynamics at any given time are not the same, and best guess there is the difference to being in a traffic jam or driving home at night.
So, if you are a lifeguard on Miami beach, my best guess is to carry on with your career, even if the son of a beach is tipping down.

My point here is that Marco Rubio is denying climate science and he shouldn't. Phage and theRedneck have made some great points and are talking some heavy science during their back and fourth in this thread.

Past all of the science stuff, I think there's a definite rapid change happening in the oceans/environment. Rapid in terms of Geological processes, not rapid on a human time-scale.

a reply to: lostbook

I Hear Carbon Taxes have Proven to Lower Sea Levels . Save the Whales too while you are at it .............

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: lostbook

I Hear Carbon Taxes have Proven to Lower Sea Levels . Save the Whales too while you are at it .............

Lol! Amazing how that works, eh?!

Little Marco can deny all he wants because it's a free country. However
he never shows up for work and has the lowest rating of any Senator.

I think he should do his denying as a regular citizen.

a reply to: lostbook