Reply With Quote
+1
Best to stick to science and good risk management, IMO.
point being?
there are probably thousands of these sorts of videos on both sides. what does posting one attempt to prove?
+1
Best to stick to science and good risk management, IMO.
Climate change is already causing dramatic flooding in the coastal U.S.
... neat interactive graph showing natural vs man-made coast flooding.
http://grist.org/science/climate-cha...aign=feedgrist
Nice blanket dismissal. This is particularly hypocritical considering how you whine about RG using the term denier where here you are conflating this video with a 9/11 conspiracy do entary.
I would ask you to in your own words explain the comparison but you are too stupid to do so I think. It would be interesting to see you try though.
This is very similar to what you do with me. You don't dispute anything actually in the video. They explain how the voltage of the sensor, the trajectory and location of the satellite, and other factors go into the model. The explanation is done by the head of the RSS, Livermore, and other climate experts. How it was done incorrectly and had to be adjusted upwards. I have rubbed your face in this for a year now too.
You should have the background to discuss it given your claimed degree yet instead we get this . Typical.
China to shut down 1,000 coal plants this year
http://grist.org/climate-energy/chin...aign=feedgrist
... but, but, but EPA is destroying US coal industry
Earth is warming 50 times faster than when it comes out of an ice age
A major new study includes some scary implications about how rapidly humans are changing the Earth’s climateRecently, The Guardian reported on a significant new study published in Nature Climate Change , finding that even if we meet our carbon reduction targets and stay below the 2°C global warming threshold , sea level rise will eventually inundate many major coastal cities around the world.The authors looked at past climate change events and model simulations of the future. They found a clear, strong relationship between the total amount of carbon pollution humans emit, and how far global sea levels will rise.
20% of the world’s population will eventually have to migrate away from coasts swamped by rising oceans. Cities including New York, London, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Calcutta, Jakarta and Shanghai would all be submerged.
The issue is that ice sheets melt quite slowly, but because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, the eventual melting and associated sea level rise are effectively locked in.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/eart...e+Raw+Story%29
LOL...
You shouldn't use such sites for information.
Here is the study:
Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change
The really like to hype the science. You should read it.
Ah wait...
It is paywalled.
Good thing I have a subscription to that journal, so I can laugh my ass of at idiots like you making unsubstantiated claims!
how about this out of the paper:
The next 10,000 years!To address the possibility that human actions may initiate future global climate change on a geological timescale rather than the scale of a few human generations, we present several different scenarios of global temperature and sea-level change over the next 10,000 years.
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
They are also assuming RCP 8.5 levels, which actual trends have been far lower, and at the lowest possible assessments rather than the highest at the 8.5...
LOL...CO2 levels for RCP8.5 for 2100 (red filled square) and its extension for 2300 (red open square) are shown for comparison (values are CO2-equivalent).
LOL...
LOL...
Seas rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years
http://news.yahoo.com/video/seas-ris...123936327.html
You're so cute when you try science-ing.
So....
Sometime before 2,800 years, the rates were faster than today!
Not 'sometime.' This is particularly amusing in light of your selection of sample rates at the cylce length when you tried to conflate Mann's work with atmospheric CO2 with your stupidity involving the ocean.
Also you clearly never took or understood a calculus class. It's standard to teach min/max zeroes for both trajectory and rate of change. That would be the first and second derivative and solving for zero. It's used to interpret data.
If you weren't so ignorant you would talk at least on that level to determine whether or not what they were saying was significant. They said 'as we came out of the past ice age' for that reason.
Instead you fumble around with simple arithmetic and basic concepts.
Not supported by data. I would have to say no. ?
Your point being?
Why did they only go back that far, of earlier data didn't support their conclusion.
Wouldn't you want to go back to all the period after we left the ace age, like 12,000 years? It's the only way to make such a point stick, otherwise you invite the true scientists like myself to remain skeptical.
Such conclusions are only good for those already on the kool-Aid. Not for those demanding real scientific conclusions.
Instead of asking questions and inserting wishful thinking for your preferred outcome, find the answers and accept the reality. Your ignorance is not the basis of reality.
LOL...
Your faith is strong.
LOL...
I discuss the science. You ask questions and assume the answers will be favorable to you.
You can say whatever you like but everyone knows how you operate.
No you don't. You repeat the gospel of AGW. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'
http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-...140020152.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) — Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood.
This was not just another of the drumbeat of 10 straight broken monthly global heat records, triggered by a super El Nino and man-made global warming. February 2016 obliterated old marks by such a margin that it was the most above-normal month since meteorologists started keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The old record was set just last December and the last three months have been the most above-normal months on record, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden. And it's not just NOAA. NASA, which uses different statistical techniques, as well as a University of Alabama Huntsville team and the private Remote Sensing System team, which measure using satellites, also said February 2016 had the biggest departure from normal on record.
NOAA said Earth averaged 56.08 degrees (13.38 degrees Celsius) in February, 2.18 degrees (1.21 degrees Celsius) above average, beating the old record for February set in 2015 by nearly six-tenths of a degree (one-third of a degree Celsius). These were figures that had federal scientists grasping for superlatives.
"The departures are what we would consider astronomical," Blunden said. "It's on land. It's in the oceans. It's in the upper atmosphere. It's in the lower atmosphere. The Arctic had record low sea ice."
"Everything everywhere is a record this month, except Antarctica," Blunden said. "It's insane."
In the Arctic, where sea ice reached a record low for February, land temperatures averaged 8 degrees above normal (4.5 degrees Celsius), Blunden said. That's after January, when Arctic land temperatures were 10.4 degrees above normal (5.8 degrees Celsius).
Worldwide, February 2016 was warmer than about 125 of the last 136 Marches.
The truth will out eventually.
The deniers will have a harder, and harder time waving away the evidence, just as the asshats claiming evolution or moon landings were faked do.
http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-...140020152.html
Is that propaganda?
I would say that's a very alarmist headline.
So, how much is because of El Nino vs man-made?
I suspect this current "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange" temperature change is similar to what was experienced during the El Nino event of 97-98.
Similar of course. The difference though is yet another high temperature record.
Kinda the point isn't it?
No other atmospheric variable is changing as much other than CO2 concentration, very obviously caused by human actions.
Gets harder and harder to bury your head in the sand to that fact as time goes by, doesn't it?
The risk grid remains unchanged.
This is what I love about this account. Are you so stupid that you cannot see how ocean as heat sink explains what you like to term the hiatus?
Seems fairly obvious to me.
Now that ocean is belching up that stored heat as an intense el nino, hence the "pop" in temperatures noted in the "alarmist" article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions