Climate Denial Crock of the Week
That cracked me up like an antarctic shelf.
3 Likes
Thatâs actually a good question.
Thank you.
Is there an ideal sea level? Is it the 1980 level? 1930? 1881? How do we select it, and how do we get there from here??
But that wasnât my question.
My question to @waetherman is how to make the chart in my post more accurate. That would be because the height above sea level of the chart was apparently wrong and Iâd like to know how to correct it. For me, itâs good to admit doing something wrong, so I can learn from my mistakes and progress.
1 Like
Sorry - it was a joke. Yâknow, how climate change skeptics are always pointing to some random data point and saying that itâs wrong and how the whole thing is therefore a hoax? And because the Antarctica height above sea level chart has this peak that is much higher than the median altitude⌠a statistician looking at that as data would discard that peak as an outlier, and then a climate skeptic would claim that the whole thing was bunk because the underlying data are bad⌠funny, see?
I guess if I have to explain the joke, it isnât funny 
4 Likes
Regarding tipping points Iâve heard that the tipping points for both collapse of the âGreat Conveyorâ current and for runaway escape of methane clathrates have both already happened. No references for either nor am I going to provide any as this is just over heard conversations in my family who have been world ecologists and conservationists for a few generations now.
1 Like
Sorry - it was a joke.
My fault, I shouldâve realized it. I suspected thatâs what you meant but after your post, I dug into it further and did find this:
From here:
Granted, it doesnât dispute any of the concepts and the conclusions are basically the same (sorry, climate change impact deniers!), but if Iâm reading it right, the numbers are different from the other chart in my previous post and I donât know which one is correct or if Iâm just reading this stuff wrong.
I was replying to a post about sea ice.
I believe theyâre both correct. One set of numbers refers primarily to glacial melt-water running into the ocean, the other refers to land ice sliding into the ocean. But both add to the total volume of ocean water.
2 Likes
Thank you for the insight!
White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, informed that the White House tells that we only have 500 DAYS to avoid the Climate Change impact. Arenât we all appropriately scared and worried? The End is near.
Iâm a little tired of the blood red skies in Colorado nearly every summer now. Then again, Iâm one of those nutty people that likes to go outdoors, so YMMV.
2 Likes
others donât want to question more than they absolutely must to ensure nothing gets done about the problem
Call me just an out of the mainstream weirdo, and maybe even a borderline denier, but before I sign on to an expensive and intrusive solution to a problem, I like to have some reasonably sound data showing me how much of the problem it will actually solve.
If that were all there were to it, I would respect that. But you said that as if nobody has touched that, whereas there has been lots of work done on varying levels of emissions and their expected effects. And instead of looking at this, you just said you havenât even figured out how much damage is expected.
In fact so far as I can tell you havenât expressed much concern about expected damages at all. Even an inevitable change in sea level would require mitigation, and Cowicide describes some others. And instead you only talk about intrusive solutions, whether you get to run your grill, and take a shot at activists who might dare to describe the risks here as large.
That position isnât caution. Itâs not waiting for people to come up with good data, itâs ignoring the data that has been provided in spades. Sure, you pat yourself on the back for admitting some of it is real, just ignoring all the details that might suggest thereâs a real problem. But thatâs still denial of evidence, nothing borderline about it.
Meanwhile those of us who have been following the evidence have gotten to see billions of dollars of damages, and civil wars exacerbated by droughts and the like, with the expectation of things getting worse even if we cut emissions and much worse if we donât. It makes it really tiring to see people still pretending âjust asking questionsâ, as if they werenât answered with ever-increasing confidence years ago, is reasonable.
In short: if you honestly would like to have that data, why havenât you looked it up yet?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
