• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2024 US Presidential Election

Could be, but won't.

It amazes me the adherence you lot to have to such miniscule measurements that have so much weighing against their viability as measurements, whether that be done by tide gauge or satellite.

The proof is in the pudding. Nothing has happened, despite constant predictions that failed to materialize - gee whizz, where have we seen that pattern before I wonder..
The measurements used to monitor climate change are far from minuscule. Scientists use a variety of tools to gather data on a global scale. Tide gauges and satellites, which you mentioned, are crucial for measuring sea level rise. Tide gauges can provide continuous data over decades at specific locations, helping us understand long-term trends. Satellites, on the other hand, offer a broader view, measuring sea levels across the globe with precision down to a few millimeters. This data is critical because even small changes in sea levels can have significant impacts on coastal communities and ecosystems.

As for the timescale of climate change, it's a gradual process that occurs over decades and centuries. While it might seem like "nothing has happened," the effects of climate change are indeed occurring. For example, global temperatures have risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times, and sea levels have risen by about 8–9 inches since 1880. These changes are linked to more frequent and severe weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.

The challenge with predicting climate change lies in its complexity. The climate system is influenced by various factors, including atmospheric gases, ocean currents, and solar radiation, making precise predictions difficult. However, the overall trend of warming and its impact on weather patterns and sea levels is clear and supported by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

It's true that some specific predictions may not come to pass exactly as forecasted, but this doesn't invalidate the broader body of scientific evidence pointing to significant long-term changes in our climate. Just as with weather forecasting, where a missed rain prediction doesn’t mean it never rains, the same is true for climate projections.

The proof of climate change, supported by extensive scientific research, shows that the risks and impacts are real, even if they unfold over a longer timeline than our day-to-day weather observations might suggest.
 
Could be, but won't.

neither of us will be alive long enough to find out.

i don't know for sure, therefore i admit don't know.

you don't know for sure, therefore you just assume you're right.


It amazes me the adherence you lot to have to such miniscule measurements

miniscule measurements add up over time.


The proof is in the pudding. Nothing has happened, despite constant predictions that failed to materialize

the proof of the pudding is in the eating? sure.

can you point to a prediction that claims the maldives will be under water by 2024? i spent a bit of time looking but the absolutely earliest prediction (of perhaps 80% coverage) is still 26 years away with most of the predictions i am seeing pointing to 2100.

i think, in this case, you're criticizing a prediction nobody has made.

alasdair
 
It's true that some specific predictions may not come to pass exactly as forecasted, but this doesn't invalidate the broader body of scientific evidence pointing to significant long-term changes in our climate. Just as with weather forecasting, where a missed rain prediction doesn’t mean it never rains, the same is true for climate projections.
Yeah, that's great and everything. A nice bit of casual sophistry. Except, we're talking about fundamentally altering the fabric of human existence through forced global governance solutions to this problem.

You won't be singing the same tune when they start telling you can't fly any more, or drive more than 10km, or eat over X calories or eat certain food stuffs. And don't be obtuse about this, because that's exactly what they are TELLING us they are going to fucking do. High-tech micro-managerial global fascism.

Fuck the Maldives. I'm calling their bluff.
 
As for sea levels, watch this. It gives you a quick outline of just how ridiculously difficult it is to accurately measure sea levels. It's not a conspiracy channel, it's a 7mil science channel.

 
when it costs nothing, calling a bluff is meaningless.
So are you prepared to give up plane travel and all the rest, living a highly managed and controlled existence like they do in China? Because that's what is going to happen.

Don't bullshit me. None of you would. When the enforcement starts affecting your life negatively you'll start whistling a different tune. You're no different from anybody else.
 
can you point to a prediction that claims the maldives will be under water by 2024? i spent a bit of time looking but the absolutely earliest prediction (of perhaps 80% coverage) is still 26 years away with most of the predictions i am seeing pointing to 2100.

i think, in this case, you're criticizing a prediction nobody has made.

alasdair
I think he was reading that trusted technical journal. Twitter.

 
When the enforcement starts affecting your life negatively you'll start whistling a different tune. You're no different from anybody else.

time will tell.

i say it right here publicly. i may be completely wrong and you may be right.

i invite you to state publicly that you may be the one who's wrong.

i am not so arrogant as to assume my opinion can be the only correct opinion. ymmv.

alasdair
 
As for sea levels, watch this. It gives you a quick outline of just how ridiculously difficult it is to accurately measure sea levels. It's not a conspiracy channel, it's a 7mil science channel.


......did you even watch the video? Or did you just pull out what you wanted and discard the rest? They explain the difficulties and how we overcome them and how the data is used to observe climate change
 
can you point to a prediction that claims the maldives will be under water by 2024? i spent a bit of time looking but the absolutely earliest prediction (of perhaps 80% coverage) is still 26 years away with most of the predictions i am seeing pointing to 2100.
Did climate scientists in the 1980s predict a 1 meter sea level rise by now?
The 24 October 1983 report Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100 , 2nd edition, predicted (mid-range scenario, see table 4.1 on page 39):
by 2000:
8.8-13.2 cm
by 2025:
26.2-39.3 cm
So in summary, all the scenarios resulted in predictions of sea level rise of well below 1 meter by the present (2018) time. Actual rise has been slightly below the lowest of the scenarios.
 
As for sea levels, watch this. It gives you a quick outline of just how ridiculously difficult it is to accurately measure sea levels. It's not a conspiracy channel, it's a 7mil science channel.


Um, you did watch that video, right?
He talked about global warming as a fact quite a bit in it.
Did say that sea level measurement could be complicated but that we managed fine.
 
......did you even watch the video? Or did you just pull out what you wanted and discard the rest? They explain the difficulties and how we overcome them and how the data is used to observe climate change
Nowhere did they explain that it was overcome, as you imply it. Only assert that we have, based on.. nothing but belief that they have. Because science.

The accuracy of measurement is preposterous given all the factors at play. Didn't you watch the video? It clearly stated that you can only get a reliable average once every 19 years due to the Sun/Moon/Earth rotation dynamics. And that is just one of many factors influencing the measuring of sea levels. It says nothing about distribution of water, land mass rise/fall, heating/cooling in regions being measured, and overlooks the fact that they can't measure the entire surface (or mass) at once.. you can only measure where the satellites are, which gives not even half the picture.

I'll ask you again. Are you prepared to fuck up our way of life based on something so ridiculously flimsy and clearly open to a huge margin of error, and that's without even factoring in political biases into the equation.

Fucks sake man. The past 4 years should have taught you. This is WHY they use this bullshit, because the measurements/scales are so ridiculously fine that deciphering the truth becomes an impossibility and more just about propaganda/weight of institutional power to convince you.
 
i invite you to state publicly that you may be the one who's wrong.

tumbleweed200.jpg


alasdair
 
ccuracy of measurement is preposterous given all the factors at play. Didn't you watch the video? It clearly stated that you can only get a reliable average once every 19 years due to the Sun/Moon/Earth rotation dynamics. And that is just one of many factors influencing the measuring of sea levels. It says nothing about distribution of water, land mass rise/fall, heating/cooling in regions being measured, and overlooks the fact that they can't measure the entire surface (or mass) at once.. you can only measure where the satellites are, which gives not even half the picture.

I'll ask you again. Are you prepared to fuck up our way of life based on something so ridiculously flimsy and clearly open to a huge margin of error, and that's without even factoring in political biases into the equation.
Yup. He said we still got reliable measurements for the purpose of seeing if sea level was rising as related to global warming, which he referred to as an established fact repeatedly. You've conveniently left that out again. I'm not watching it again today. Your links have not supported your statements. What? Twice? The right generally likes to throw up repeated BS statements and links to chase which then exhausts the debater on the other side and often makes them seem less relevant since they are constantly on the defensive. Look up Gish Gallop. My response is generally to refute a couple/few and then question the credibility of the galloper. I think we're there now. I question your credibility.

Now. What you seem to be falling back on is saying that the cost (to you) would be too high to address global warming. To address this argument I think I will use the tool of taking it to extremes to examine the basic premise. If someone held a knife to your throat, would you give up your car? Putting a gun to your head with one bullet Russian Roulette style, would you pay more for gas?

So, obviously, the only question is one of degree. Not if we need to act, but cost benefit ratio.
We are already seeing the results of global warming. What are we willing to give up to avoid things getting worse as they obviously will? And, remember that you are also talking about your kids inheriting the earth you decided was worth cheap gas.

And, I've seen no one call for the drastic measures you have cited. So, let's keep this grounded in reality.
 
The birds are dying in the windmills.
1,000 of acres of solar panels were destroyed by hail storm in Texas.

I'm all for solar, but they're not funding my labs to design something better.
They have idiots working on those projects.

windmills are fuckin with the whales in the ocean too for some reason
 
Top