Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

The National Academy of Science has conducted an extensive study on potential Ice Loss and subsequent sea level rise. Here is the conclusion. Note that they acknowledge uncertainties, however their “expectations” are undeniable.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/27160/chapter/5#46

CONCLUSIONS

Antarctica’s ice sheets, which contain approximately 58 m of sea level rise potential, may be approaching a dangerous tipping point toward major and potentially irreversible ice mass loss. Sea level rise due to greenhouse gas emissions will last centuries to millennia and affect the entire global community and economy, especially roughly 1 billion people who live in low-lying coastal zones. Oceanic forcing of the Antarctic ice sheets, through heat delivery and mechanical erosion, is expected to be the dominant source of ice mass loss in the next century, with atmospheric forcing also causing substantial ice mass loss. Major uncertainties remain about rates and extent of ocean warming, transport of heat through the sub–ice shelf cavities, and the sensitivity of the surface mass balance of ice sheets to increasing global temperatures
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024.

 

Huntsville, Alabama is home to UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville. The point is that making a measurement doesn't make an average measurement over time or everywhere.

 

Or more accurately some kind of cognitive tribalism.

fwiw, the great lakes already do flow to the Mississippi River by way of the Chicago canal. About a hundred years ago they reversed the flow of a river by cutting a flow to the Mississippi watershed so they could carry away all the Chicago sewage.to New Orleans instead of Milwaukee.

 

You can't be serious. UAH is where Spencer and Christy are running the most credible satellite temperature measurement system in the worl. It literally does take an average temperature measurement over time over the whole earth. Now, you can cavil that it is measuring temperature in the lower troposphere rather than at the surface, but for purposes of determining how the earth's average surface temperature is changing over time, there is no better or more credible data set -- which is one reason NOAA funds it and uses it. It also agrees better with radiosonde and surface temperature data from the most pristine rural instrument sites than rival temperature data sets that show more warming, like GISS and HadCRUT.

 

I.e., "Given our false and absurd modeling assumptions..."

 

On the western side of Hudson Bay, sea level has fallen by more than two meters just in the last few hundred years! In fact, the rising sea floor under Hudson Bay and other formerly glaciated continental shelf areas has been pushing sea level up globally since the end of the last ice age. The contribution of rising temperature may be quite minor.

 

Thanks. Sounds interesting.

 

That is a man-made passage made for commerce, that is not the egress. 99.999% of the water flows through the Saint Lawrence River to the Atlantic.

Now at one time, the Mississippi was the major egress. But we are talking about roughly 30,000 years ago. At that point the St. Lawrence was still under the ice, and the Great Lakes were nothing like we know of them today.

Now where all that nonsense came from about sewage away from Milwaukie and towards New Orleans and reversing the flow of the river, I have absolutely no idea. Sounds like you read or heard something about it, then have inserted a hell of a lot of nonsense that has nothing to do with it.

 

Exactly, glacial rebound. Here is an example of one of the most well known, in Canada. Where the crust has rebounded roughly 100 meters since the glaciers left.



And here is a short video by a geology professor who talks about the rise and fall of the coast because of tectonic forces.



And if anybody travels along the coastlines of Oregon and Washington, this is something that is not all that hard to find. Ancient trees that are standing dead. At this time they are sitting on dry land, just as they were over 300 years ago. But after the 1700 Cascadia Earthquake, suddenly that land was all below sea level. The stress at the subduction zone was released, and the land sank. And in the 324 years since then stresses have again caused it to rise up above sea level. There is a reason why most of that area of the country has the highest danger of tsunamis. And much of what is built up along coastal Oregon and Washington will once again be below sea level whenever the next Great Cascadia Earthquake happens.

People need to think on that. The land in 1700 along the coast dropped an average of two to three meters. And in the three centuries since it has risen up an additional two to three meters.

And almost all geologists are aware that like Yellowstone, another Great Cascadia Earthquake is "due". Which literally means it might happen tomorrow, or in another two centuries. But it will happen, and huge segments of US 101 when it does will suddenly be underwater once again.

People for some reason tend to think of the ground as "solid". That is a mistake, and as one teacher explained to me long ago it should instead be thought of as like fabric. Where one can twist, push, and pull it and causes rises, drops, and distortions on the surface of the fabric. And the exact same thing is done today be glacial and tectonic forces. Specifically when describing glacial rebound, his example was lightly stretching in the air some fabric, and putting on it some ice. The ice will cause the fabric to sink, but as it melts it will rise again to the former level.

 

Actually, the flow of the Chicago River was indeed reversed, largely as a sanitary measure. It is tiny compared to the St. Lawrence.

 

This is what Wikipedia says:

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, historically known as the Chicago Drainage Canal, is a 28-mile-long canal system that connects the Chicago River to the Des Plaines River. It reverses the direction of the Main Stem and the South Branch of the Chicago River, which now flows out of Lake Michigan rather than into it. Wikipedia​

Are you saying they're wrong?

 

Only a part of the Chicago River, not the entire river. What had been a small creek that joined the river before the outflow was reversed and became part of the canal. They did not change the direction of the entire river.

 

Yes, I know about the canal. What does that all have to do with the rest of your claims, I have no idea. Especially the parts about Milwaukee and New Orleans, that was almost completely nonsensical.

As I said, you had a small sliver of facts there, overlaid with a lot of nonsense.

 

The Chicago River was reversed in 1900 to protect Chicago's drinking water supply and prevent the spread of disease:
Explanation
Problem

• Chicago's sewage and pollutants flowed directly into Lake Michigan, the city's drinking water source. This made Chicago residents susceptible to diseases like cholera and typhoid fever.
  Solution
• Engineer Sylvester Chesbrough proposed reversing the river's flow and sending the sewage to the Mississippi River instead.
  Construction
• The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal was built, connecting the south branch of the river to the Des Plaines River. The canal was 28 miles long and took eight years to build.
  Results
• The reversal of the river allowed Chicago to become a major center of commerce and transportation. It also prevented the spread of water borne diseases.

 

Looks like Mushroom is clinging to his fundly held beliefs w/ the the Chicago river just like he defends his climate story.

 

Mushroom is usually quite sound, IMHO. I think this is all mainly semantics.

 

Only the South Fork which flowed from south to north. The North Fork continues to flow from north to south, as it has always done. What they did was block off the old outlet to the lake, where the north and south forks met and after dredging it became an inlet for lake traffic to the canal. And the original South Fork which was about 6 miles long and became the start of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. And I know of the sewage issue, which was indeed a problem. For those that lived in Chicago, not Milwaukee which is almost 100 miles away.

Nor New Orleans, which is almost 1,000 miles away.

Once again, you should know I tend to be more than a bit of a sticker for accuracy. The Chicago River before then was around 156 miles long, running north to south. Stating they "reversed the course" of only 6 or 7 miles of a minor fork of that river is not really accurate, and very misleading. And the issue with the sewage was an issue, to Chicago. Not Milwaukee. Nor was it done to dump it in New Orleans.

Not so much semantics, but accuracy.

If the statement was "reverses part of the course", that is completely accurate.

And by reading what was originally posted, it really was highly inaccurate. I am actually finding it amazing this is still going on, to be honest. But a great deal of the original post was inaccurate, that was only a part of it.

 

As you wish.

 

Awww, I love you too.

 

Huh, being willing to give respect and see complexity. I am very impressed w/ your intellectual honesty as many folks simply rant into an all or nothing mindset calling the opponent names like "treasonous liar".

My comment about his guarding fondly held beliefs has to do w/ the confirmation bias we all have. In general we all feel discomfort when we're presented w/ info that differs w/ the beliefs we espouse. The reason is that we're sane and most of our beliefs are correct and there's just not enough time & energy to evaluate everything we come across. My goal in controlling my confirmation bias is to spot check the info that comes in and to occasionally be willing to admit my error.

We are diverse. Mushroom has many virtues that surpass mine. This discussion of the Chicago canal (imho) shows an excessive inability to admit a mistake.

 

Pathways to changing the minds of climate deniers

 

Please understand that my position is that I don't know if man-made climate damage is happening. I'm denying nothing, I just don't know.

Many say that the damage consists of warming. I could consider that it's true if someone could say what is warming, what is it's temperature, and what was its temperature back when. That's it.

For me it's not "Pathways", it's just a bit of info that's not there..

 

First two sentences:
"Want to sway the opinion of climate deniers? Start by acknowledging and respecting people’s beliefs."

Yeah. "Respect" people's beliefs by calling them, "climate deniers," when you know very well they do not deny that climate exists, or that climate changes, or that human activities may contribute to it. That sure seems respectful.

So what exactly, then, do "climate deniers" deny?

Maybe that the science is settled, which anyone can read peer-reviewed journals of climate science and see is false?

Maybe that there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency" that anyone can look out their window and see does not exist?

Maybe that CO2 is a pollutant, when it is known to be beneficial rather than harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration?

Maybe that governments implementing policies that deprive people of access to cheap, safe, convenient, and reliable fossil fuels to subsidize expensive, unreliable and inconvenient renewables is a good approach to securing energy supplies for our economy, when it is clear that the opposite is the case?

Maybe that frightening students, beginning in kindergarten, with absurd and anti-scientific scare stories about a future of climate catastrophe is a reasonable, productive, and responsible use of teachers' time and skills when anyone with a lick of sense knows it isn't?

Maybe that the earth's climate showed little change for millennia before the 20th century, when we know for certain that there have been several temperature excursions comparable to the modern warming just in the last 10,000 years?

No, wait a minute, none of those can be it, because denying all those falsehoods is just being honest and truthful.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought denying lies was generally the right and responsible thing to do.

 

In the real world the "science" is never settled. Sure it was "settled" w/ something like the Law of Gravity, and then Einstein showed how it ain't necessarily so. These days the favored trend is that gravity is not even a force but rather simply a curature of space/time.

If 97% of the scientists said that water was not wet, I'd let them believe it all they want. Then I'd just check w/ water out of the tap, see that yes water is in fact still wet, and then say that 97% of the scientists are wrong.

 

Please put your pathways where the sun doesn’t shine.