Home | About | Donate

'Game-Changer': Confirming Fears, Satellite Images Reveal Seas Rising at Increasing Rates


I guess Trump will have to lie to us again and call these satellite images just more fake news.


Something about a long run off a short pier ~


Brings new meaning to the phrase “drain the swamp”…

But deciding to more or less ignore the implications of SLR is ubiquitous. Here in the Bay Area, for instance, we have well-meaning projects to restore bay wetlands. I guess it’s better to have some plan then no plan at all, but the bay restoration project seems to belong to a different planet than one on which the wetlands you restore will soon be sea floor.


Vive la hurry!


It’s not debatable at all. It’s a no-brainer. Take Obama, He got vehicle fuel efficiency standards for cars raised to 50 miles per gallon. He gave an executive order for the Clean Power Plan, He got developing countries to make pledges to control their emissions. A survey of state and local actions will show tremendous efforts by Democrats to reduce emissions. Both Sanders and Clinton had ambitious campaign promises for increasing green energy and moving to renewable energy for electricity. No developed country can I can think of is actually doing what is necessary to stay under 2C and certainly not under 1.5C. None is on track to meet their Paris agreement pledges. For technological, economic, and political reasons it is difficult to accomplish but the Democrats are doing what they can as are millions citizens around the country. Emissions from energy peaked around 2007 and have declined to near 1990 levels but unless the Democrats can return to power quickly this downward trend could come to a halt.


The scariest thing about the seas rising is an idiot like Trump as president will simply try to find ways to make profits off of the seas rising instead of provide any effort at all to slow down or stop the process. He is a fanatic on increasing the reliance on fossil fuels instead of investing in the future of alternative energy sources. Which goes back to those traditional fuel corporations being big Trump donors during the 2016 election. So Trump is indulging them in less regulation as a big fat butt kiss for being his big donors in his running for president.

Trump’s climate science denial clashes with reality of
Sep 18, 2016 · Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks declined a request to interview Trump or one of his advisors on global warming.
Donald Trump says climate change is a ‘hoax’ but tries to .
Donald Trump says climate change is a 'hoax … Ireland from “global warming and its effects". Mr Trump, … in sea level rise as a result of global warming …


There are idiots everywhere I’m afraid.

All suburbia and their land gobbling & investment-happy unsustainable and unimaginably costly efforts to pretend to be home in nature.

Complete subservience - bowing to gold even if it means an assembly line or worse - a middle management lifestyle.

“What of the hunt and the swift pony - the end of living and the beginning of survival” (Chief Seattle)


Let’s see how Pruittt spins this as somehow good for us. “Rising seas provide Arizona landowners with a heretofore unexpected opportunity to own beach property, thus increasing their land’s market value!”


You must be in the market for a beach front condo. Hopefully you’ll be joined by other climate deniers there.


Those satellites were built by scientists and scientistezes are scamming the gubmint for munee. Wait, military and secret service satellites are built by scientists. What does that mean? That all those so-called photos of bad guys doing bad things are photoshopped to scam us into spending more munee on the military? If you can’t trust the (weather) satellites, then you can’t trust THE satellites (that are used by the military for national security). :wink:


Who says you can’t trust the satellites? The issue is not evidence of an interglacial, it’s the modeling based claims that it’s not natural.


You should go to Panama and visit the GunaYala there and ask them why their islands have suddenly started to erode away in the past few years when previously their islands have been stable for hundreds of years. They know because they’ve been living there this whole time. I’d like to see if you can falsify their model. Go to Panama, visit the GunaYala, and see how tenable your denialism is.


If you continue to refuse to put 2 and 2 together, there’s no point in you clicking on your little keyboard.

How’s this? ISIS isn’t a threat to us because the modeling based claims being promulgated by our “secret service” is deliberately non-falsifiable because the secret service and military contractors are just trying to scam us for our tax dollars.


Because of changes which are naturally occurring, across millennia and longer, just like always. Evidence of warming isn’t enough to show one reason or another. You’re merely repeating the correlation = causation logical fallacy.

I don’t need to falsify their claims, their claims are irrelevant to the issue even if their claims about erosion are true, because there is no falsifiable way to show they are not natural changes. Repeating other items consistent with interglacial climate changes is not sufficient to show models are correct.


Oh, I’m putting two and two together, and getting four. You’re getting 2, 3, 5, anything but four because you’re using logical fallacies as a basis for your arguments.

I understand it’s not convenient that standard science does not support the argument that models are empirical evidence, or that correlation = causation. That’s no one’s responsibility to deal with …except for the folks using these fallacies when making flawed arguments.


Like I said, you clearly are not putting 2 and 2 together. You are clearly embarrassing yourself by proving that you have no idea how these scientists are using models. You clearly haven’t figured it out. You haven’t put 2 and 2 together. You can be a denialist all you want and try to shoot down positive efforts by others to create a better world but that doesn’t mean you’ve put 2 and 2 together. Its your arguments that are flawed.


Yes, you can repeat yourself all you like, but you haven’t actually shown my arguments to be false.

I know how they are using models. They tune them using magic numbers in hindcasting, and then assume this validates results from forecasting. They don’t have knowledge of the details of a zillion variables they must account for, and do it assuming their tuning in place of knowing these details yields valid results. They don’t even understand the role of convection and clouds in heat transport, and the IPCC reports themselves admit this…IF you read the details, which I have.

So it’s embarrassing to actually understand the issues in modeling? And the drawbacks and limitations, including the fact that the ‘ensembles’ have run hot for years now? This is why I note they’re non falsifiable…their proponents won’t even accept when their predictions are wrong.

Efforts to fix what is not a problem are not positive, they are a waste of everyone’s time and resources.


…said the frog in the pot of water about to boil.

Your allegiance to the “falsifiable” standard is charming, but your assertion that climate science isn’t falsifiable is simply wrong. Current climate science is, in fact, falsifiable. We need only to start reducing global CO2 concentrations to see if the rate of global temperature change declines (or even if the absolute temperatures decline). If we do that, and the rate of temperature change remains on its current course, then current climate science will have been proven to be false.

In the meantime, all the best and brightest minds that have applied themselves to this problem are telling us that we are in some deep serious here and better wake up and do something about it.

In a separate comment, you argue:

Before turning to the merits of your argument, I note that you fail to cite the logical fallacy you believe to be present in the comments and conclusions of others.

That aside, it turns out it is you that is relying on a logical fallacy, having committed the fallacy of arguing from false premises. You argue that, because climate science is not falsifiable, it is a fallacy to rely on its conclusions. As demonstrated above, this is a false premise because climate science is, in fact, falsifiable. We need only do the experiment.

Putting aside all this logical fallacy pedantry, however, we need to take note of the risks associated with getting this wrong. If we do nothing and get it wrong, we are collectively screwed and may wipe out our species, and many others, on planet Earth. If we do something, and get it wrong, sure we changed the way we do business (i.e. eliminated fossil fuels from our energy resources), but we reap enormous other benefits in air quality and public health that, on their own, outweigh the cost of pursuing that path. On a benefit-risk analysis, we should be doing this anyway. Having a habitable planet just might be a big side-benefit upside from doing so. Arguing against that doesn’t seem rational at all.


Thank you. That sums it up. The idiot deniers and/or those who seem to believe all these scientists are just selling us a bunch of goods with their “false models” are certifiably insane. I will never understand why they waste their precious time on a progressive site trying to convince those of us who actually believe in science and rational thinking, that somehow we are going to swallow their endless and mindless bullshit.


So we can falsify it by making massive social and infrastructure changes reaching nearly every single facet of life at immense expense, and then and only then finding out if all the effort was wasted or not? That doesn’t sound like a good risk to me, especially when humans and all the critters and plants around now survived hotter temperatures previously in this same interglacial.

I don’t agree on the risks. It has been warmer by the amount we’re warned about already, and instead of dying off humans flourished during those times, with far less adaptive capability. I don’t think we’d reap as many benefits to public health as we would if we put the same many, many trillions straight into health care research, and continued elsewhere using the same inexpensive energy sources.

Are you defining best and brightest by selecting only those who agree with the contentions?

I appreciate your appeal to logic and your avoidance of the typical non arguments peddled by so many. You argued based on content and logic, not personal attacks. Nice work and thank you.