-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FuzzyLumpkins
Because I felt that demonstrating how the author likes to marry different datasets like a lying piece of shit once was enough. He does it there too. Youre an ass for posting it after I just chastised the author for doing it on the last one. Do you realize that?
If you don't like combining different datasets, then you must hate climate science. :lmao
Especially, paleoclimatology.
Yeah, he really went back millennia for that data. :lmao
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
R =current ratio of water to land (2.84)
C= claimed rise of oceans in feet (197')
I=Increase in volume from water to ice (10% or 1.1 of water volume)
A= depth of land ice necessary to equal 197' of water rise
C X R X I = A
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Gay_6112e6_133852.jpg
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
fuzzy monkey shit.
Pretty simple math dumbass.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
fuzzy monkey shit.
Pretty simple math dumbass.
:lol
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarrinS
If you don't like combining different datasets, then you must hate climate science. :lmao
Especially, paleoclimatology.
Yeah, he really went back millennia for that data. :lmao
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you want to merge datasets like that you have to normalize the data. It's routine in any statistical analysis. WUWT doesn't even gloss it over. We've discussed this before so I'm back to my age old question: is your stupidity feigned or real.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FuzzyLumpkins
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you want to merge datasets like that you have to normalize the data. It's routine in any statistical analysis. WUWT doesn't even gloss it over. We've discussed this before so I'm back to my age old question: is your stupidity feigned or real.
Bullshit. Prove the data is not scaled correctly or STFU.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Down Under
The idea of the Fixed price/floating price on carbon is to push companies away from fossil fuels and towards using renewable energy. It will cost, but hasn't done a lot of damage to countries which have put a price on carbon in the past 20-30 years and their renewable energy industries have taken off in this time. China have made strong commitments to cut their carbon intensity by around 65% by 2030.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandomGuy
Changing to renewables will end up costing a lot less in the long run than the what the prodigious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry suggests.
The people who make a lot of money from such things have a LOT of very vested interest in exaggerating the impact of switching energy sources.
The important thing to remember for everybody else is that switching energy sources is simply a substitution of goods, i.e. one for another.
Renewables have had a tiny, tiny, fraction of the funds pumped into R & D and infrastructure that fossil fuels have, once that ratio changes, and the downward costs of renewables continues, that will change.
The damage done by fossil fuel extraction and usage will look like a pretty shitty price to pay when the prices reach parity, as they are about to do, even with coal getting cheaper due to falling demand.
Simple economics. Don't believe the doom and gloom economic catastrophe schtick, it is far overblown.
I should add, since it has been brought up twice, that China's main drive for renewables is not necessarily to reduce emissions, but energy security. Which is actually an extremely valid reason on it's own. Plus China is a huge country, they definitely have the room and the know how to build that up.
I have no beef with renewables. I've been rooting for a breakthrough in battery technology for a lot of years now. The main issue with renewables is the small energy output, but batteries can solve that. I think it's the missing link. If you get that, it can change the landscape.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarrinS
Bullshit. Prove the data is not scaled correctly or STFU.
Your capacity to learn is poor and repetitive nonsense is boring. You don't eat your feedback.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FuzzyLumpkins
Your capacity to learn is poor and repetitive nonsense is boring. You don't eat your feedback.
When your bullshit fails per par, you just resort to insults. You reek of insecurity.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarrinS
When your bullshit fails per par, you just resort to insults. You reek of insecurity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FuzzyLumpkins
Bullshit he used it to take a shot at peer review. He then goes on to complain how the press releases are done and ignores the actual science.
It then links to something Gore's think tank produced.
It's the typical playbook. You buy it too. Stupid people believe stupid things.
You ignored my point about oilco interference in this particular industry and the meat of the 538 piece almost completely. What one should take from the 538 piece is much like pharmaceutical and chemical companies doctoring results like Silver talks about, oil co lobby plays the same role here.
One benefit of this watchdog group is that there is heavy oversight on the process. Between the oil companies, university groups like PSU and BEST, national organizations and trade groups like NSF and NASA, and the humongous international community including IPCC and all the national academies, you have a level oversight never seen before.
As for the remainder of his piece. The way he took all those running average conflated numbers and then tacking on those two data points from a set to make it appear flat in this graph was shit you would do:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...ng?w=720&h=523
Just skip over a few thousand years and voila its the same tack on yet another data set. SEE!! DERPS!!!
You have avoided discussing this graph all from one set:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/defa...?itok=_d4rwbb-
I'd be interested for your take on that. It was held for months in review and then published a couple months ago.
You dodged most of this. Don't talk to me of insecurity and lame tactics.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Even if this happens, we will all be dead before it happens so who gives a fuck?
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Why do climate change cultists always try to minimize historical climate change? When glaciers recede, we find medieval artifacts. Off the shores of numerous coasts are cities/ruins that are now beneath the ocean.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarrinS
Why do climate change cultists always try to minimize historical climate change? When glaciers recede, we find medieval artifacts. Off the shores of numerous coasts are cities/ruins that are now beneath the ocean.
Who said they did? I was talking about Mickey Mouse data construction. You're now making the natural variation argument using bad imagery.
Quote:
By employing the same theory to predict the impact upon Earth’s rotational state due to both the Late Pleistocene glacial cycle and the influence of present-day melting of the great polar ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, it has also proven possible to estimate the extent to which these ice sheets may have been losing mass over the past century. In Peltier (1998), such analysis led to an upper-bound estimate of approximately 0.5 mm yr–1 for the rate of global sea level rise equivalent to the mass loss. This suggests the plausibility of the notion that polar ice sheet and glacier melting may provide the required closure of the global sea level rise budget.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ch6s6-4-3.html
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
So they have had problems with erosion since they built the town in 1905. OK. So do a lot of other shorelines. It's not like they don't have kick ass storms up there all the time.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
#whalelivesmatter #seallivesmatter
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DarrinS
We will wait with baited breath for you to return to show us the error of our ways.
So, you didn't even try to figure it out for yourself? Why is critical thinking so hard for you?
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Winehole23
Guess I better sell my home and my rental which, you guessed, is in Sweetwater. Can't sell my house until my kids are finished with high school. Then I plan to move into the rental, reside there for 2 years and then sell (so I don't have to pay capital gains). Then move to where? Any suggestions? I guess it depends on where my kids are.
Why I should believe all this when they can't even tell accurately whether it's gonna rain tomorrow?
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
you don't have to. planners and engineers who have to plan for the future don't have the option of sticking their heads in the sand.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rmt
Guess I better sell my home and my rental which, you guessed, is in Sweetwater. Can't sell my house until my kids are finished with high school. Then I plan to move into the rental, reside there for 2 years and then sell (so I don't have to pay capital gains). Then move to where? Any suggestions? I guess it depends on where my kids are.
Why I should believe all this when they can't even tell accurately whether it's gonna rain tomorrow?
While it's totally unrelated to the topic at hand, statistically, weather forecasts are actually pretty accurate.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6558770
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Why is it totally unrelated - don't y'all think the sea rising is related to climate change and global warming? What - the weather doesn't have anything to do with the climate? I don't know about you, but where I am - they'll predict showers and there's none or vice versa. And if they can't predict accurately what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they say about 20, 30, 40 years from now?
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rmt
Why is it totally unrelated - don't y'all think the sea rising is related to climate change and global warming? What - the weather doesn't have anything to do with the climate? I don't know about you, but where I am - they'll predict showers and there's none or vice versa. And if they can't predict accurately what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they say about 20, 30, 40 years from now?
weather and climate are related, but they aren't the same. Many of the variables that are so volatile in weather models that cause errors are not applicable for long-term climate models.
But again, weather models and predictions as a whole are actually pretty accurate, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
-
Re: Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
weather and climate are related, but they aren't the same. Many of the variables that are so volatile in weather models that cause errors are not applicable for long-term climate models.
But again, weather models and predictions as a whole are actually pretty accurate, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
Are you including hurricanes in these weather models and predictions?
