Reply With Quote
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
If you don't like combining different datasets, then you must hate climate science.
Especially, paleoclimatology.
Yeah, he really went back millennia for that data.
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
fuzzy monkey .
Pretty simple math dumbass.
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.If you don't like combining different datasets, then you must hate climate science.
Especially, paleoclimatology.
Yeah, he really went back millennia for that data.
Bull . Prove the data is not scaled correctly or STFU.
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.
Your capacity to learn is poor and repe ive nonsense is boring. You don't eat your feedback.
When your bull fails per par, you just resort to insults. You reek of insecurity.
You dodged most of this. Don't talk to me of insecurity and lame tactics.Bull 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 you would do:
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:
I'd be interested for your take on that. It was held for months in review and then published a couple months ago.
Hockey Stick!
Even if this happens, we will all be dead before it happens so who gives a ?
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.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ch6s6-4-3.htmlBy 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.
This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...830-story.html
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.
#whalelivesmatter #seallivesmatter
So, you didn't even try to figure it out for yourself? Why is critical thinking so hard for you?
Guess I better sell my home and my rental which, you guessed, is in Swee er. 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?
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.
While it's totally unrelated to the topic at hand, statistically, weather forecasts are actually pretty accurate.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6558770
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.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 11-29-2015 at 09:56 AM.
Are you including hurricanes in these weather models and predictions?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
