Reply With Quote
... your BLIND IDEOLOGY renders you immune to contrary facts.
... your BLIND IDEOLOGY renders you immune to contrary facts.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ter-than-ever/“The coastal communities of rapidly expanding cities in the developing world and vulnerable tropical coastal ecosystems will have a very limited time to adapt to sea-level rises after the ‘2 degrees Celsius’ threshold is likely to be reached,” said Svetlana Jevrejeva, a researcher at the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, England, and lead author of the study.
If the rate of carbon emissions continues unabated, the authors said, the globe would warm by 2 degrees and cause significant sea-level rise by 2040. It would be worse along the East Coast of North America and Norway, which are expected to experience a sea-level rise of about a foot. The relative speed of the sea’s rise means many areas won’t have time to adapt, researchers found. And from there, warming would accelerate even faster.
The sea-level rise comes as the Earth’s record-breaking warmth is expected to become the “new normal,” according to another study published this week in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. While 2015 was the hottest year on record, it could be the average within the next decade if carbon emissions continue to rise at their current rate, it found. And even if countries take action to limit carbon dioxide, humanity may have already locked in the increased warmth by 2040.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Not exactly amateurs.
Facts don't matter to WC. He's post-fact and post-science that doesn't agree with his blind ideology.
That line of argument is common in the denier community. Nothing more and nothing less but it is what it is.
Paranoid. Sorry you don't like observations based on reality. I suggest some introspection.
what are you even talking about?That line of argument is common in the denier community. Nothing more and nothing less but it is what it is.
The natural oscillation argument. "It's been warming since the last ice age." It's one of the go to denier arguments that BEST put to bed pushing a decade at this point.
You made that argument.
you're an imbecile. i didnt make any sort of argument. i quoted the nasa article that attributed the gains to increased snowfall for the past 10,000 years. if you weren't such a dip you would see that just two pages earlier in this thread, i posted a graphic which completely negates the "natural oscillation argument" and followed it up with a post that also stresses the acceleration of the rate of warming in recent years
you just see words you dont like and instantly go
CLIMATE DENIER! CLIMATE DENIER! CLIMATE DENIER!
You were saying?
You certainly seem asshurt though.
wow
yes. i quoted the nasa article that attributed it to extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago. that is not the same as the more recent warming we have seen in the last century
you're trying to pick a fight when there isn't one and make yourself look foolish in the process
stay calm and climategeddon on
That is a cool gif, I am so totally stealing it.
Meh. The economy will make the fossil fuel play dumb anyway. The worlds largest car market is moving to electric vehicles, and that will have some pretty profound effects.
CO2 or not, your stupid arguments that you think were based on the free market about some sort of vague harm in reducing emissions are looking dumber by the minute.
It said it began then. You then said "i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is warmer unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years."
That is the natural oscillation argument. Own it.
Picking a fight? I am trying to discuss the topic. You are the one calling me a "imbecile" and now starting with emotional garbage like "making yourself look foolish."
I suggest you take those sentiments and try some introspection.
The extra snowfall is a result of conditions that began 10,000 years ago. That is separate from the accelerated warming we've seen as a result of our activity. I was making sure the two weren't being conflated and you threw a hissy fit.
You said you could not give credence to any alternate mechanism unless it was the mechanism from 10k years ago. That is excluding anything other than that natural oscillation no matter how hard you try to distance yourself from it.
And I am not the one posting siren gifs and casting aspersions, hissy. I can understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind your original nonsense though.
The earth has endured far worse calamities than CO2 and animal farts, tbh.
Except I am standing behind it. The excess snowfall dates back 10,000 years. That is a separate phenomenon from the more recent agw
The earth will be just fine long after humans are extinct. The earth enduring things is irrelevant to how those same things affect humans.
I meant the other part which you will address directly to save your life. Specifically:
How could I possibly suggest anything but that. . . . .
I do like you pretending that at any point I was arguing the existence of natural oscillation. The disagreement was about anything else contributing to the warm air over Antarctica that you just couldn't figure.
sigh
i'm getting tired of this
the "warmer air" that is causing the excess precipitation is not the same attribution as the excess warming we've had due to human activity. the former has been a factor for over 10,000 years. i was clarifying that point.
you've somehow tried to spin that into me "playing the climate denier game"
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-10-2017 at 09:57 PM.
The article didn't limit the phenomenon to one cause. It just said the phenomenon began 10k years ago when we came out of the last ice age. It's also not separate from the greenhouse effect. The change in solar radiation from the Earth's obliqueness, eccentricity, ENSO, the solar cycle, GHG, etc all contribute.
And no you were trying to say that natural oscillation was the exclusive cause. That has been my entire point: that is what AGW deniers do: say natural oscillation is the exclusive cause for GW.
Prima facie, it's pretty damn ignorant to say the Earth's warming from GHG would not accelerate the phenomenon. Higher temperatures means more moisture and most of the earth is covered in water.
My God Random...
Here we have an oceanographer who apparently thinks GW will cause the whole of the oceans to rise by 2C. Not just the immediate surface, which still will not rise by that much if the atmosphere does. She is outside here field.
Do the math.
Take the mass of the oceans and calculate how many joules of energy it takes to raise the temperature by 2 degrees, Then compute that to watt-hours, and then to what surface imbalance it takes over how many years to accomplish this.
I think it will surprise you.
Keep in mind just how ambiguous her statement is, and I wonder what it was in full context.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions