NASA: Sea Level Rise Accelerating
video
NASA has released new images showing global sea level rise. The agency’s scientists say sea levels have risen four inches in the last two decades. (Aug. 27) Video provided by AP
about 10 centimeters over 20 years
CrazyNeutrino said:
NASA: Sea Level Rise Acceleratingvideo
NASA has released new images showing global sea level rise. The agency’s scientists say sea levels have risen four inches in the last two decades. (Aug. 27) Video provided by AP
about 10 centimeters over 20 years
Everything connected with global warming is accelerating, it is a very big ship that cannot be turned quickly. What we have started will last for thousands of years and will bring changes we cannot imagine.
> Everything connected with global warming is accelerating
What is it? 20 mm per decade accelerating to 25 mm per decade?
Sorry about cynicism. Too much “crying wolf” in my life about coming apocalypses. According to scientific predictions from 1972, about half the Earth’s population ought to be dead from the effects of air pollution (smog, VOCs etc) by the year 2020.
I was reading yesterday about a scientific prediction of apocalypse that I hadn’t heard of before. Scientific predictions from the 1920s and 1930s, based on studies of evolution from fossils, showed that the natural process of evolution almost always leads directly to lineages of species being “doomed to extinction”. Species evolve in such a way that they kill themselves off. This is actually a much more serious concern than sea level rise.
mollwollfumble said:
Sorry about cynicism. Too much “crying wolf” in my life about coming apocalypses. According to scientific predictions from 1972, about half the Earth’s population ought to be dead from the effects of air pollution (smog, VOCs etc) by the year 2020.I was reading yesterday about a scientific prediction of apocalypse that I hadn’t heard of before. Scientific predictions from the 1920s and 1930s, based on studies of evolution from fossils, showed that the natural process of evolution almost always leads directly to lineages of species being “doomed to extinction”. Species evolve in such a way that they kill themselves off. This is actually a much more serious concern than sea level rise.
Perhaps if we had listened to more of those “wolves” we would not be in such a diabolical mess in which we find ourselves today.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
Sorry about cynicism. Too much “crying wolf” in my life about coming apocalypses. According to scientific predictions from 1972, about half the Earth’s population ought to be dead from the effects of air pollution (smog, VOCs etc) by the year 2020.I was reading yesterday about a scientific prediction of apocalypse that I hadn’t heard of before. Scientific predictions from the 1920s and 1930s, based on studies of evolution from fossils, showed that the natural process of evolution almost always leads directly to lineages of species being “doomed to extinction”. Species evolve in such a way that they kill themselves off. This is actually a much more serious concern than sea level rise.
Perhaps if we had listened to more of those “wolves” we would not be in such a diabolical mess in which we find ourselves today.
diabolical ?
Oh for fuck sake
your’re a complete alarmist numbskull
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
Sorry about cynicism. Too much “crying wolf” in my life about coming apocalypses. According to scientific predictions from 1972, about half the Earth’s population ought to be dead from the effects of air pollution (smog, VOCs etc) by the year 2020.I was reading yesterday about a scientific prediction of apocalypse that I hadn’t heard of before. Scientific predictions from the 1920s and 1930s, based on studies of evolution from fossils, showed that the natural process of evolution almost always leads directly to lineages of species being “doomed to extinction”. Species evolve in such a way that they kill themselves off. This is actually a much more serious concern than sea level rise.
Perhaps if we had listened to more of those “wolves” we would not be in such a diabolical mess in which we find ourselves today.
diabolical ?
Oh for fuck sake
your’re a complete alarmist numbskull
If I thought you knew anything about the environment I would listen to you, but I don’t, so I listen to the science and scientists who actually work in the field, Both you and Moll seem to have an exceptionally narrow view about what is happening to the biota of this planet and it about time you both started educating yourselves, because it is you who are the numbskulls.
PermeateFree said:
Both you and Moll seem to have an exceptionally narrow view about what is happening to the biota of this planet and it about time you both started educating yourselves, because it is you who are the numbskulls.
No, we, like most others, live on another planet to the one your kind live on.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Both you and Moll seem to have an exceptionally narrow view about what is happening to the biota of this planet and it about time you both started educating yourselves, because it is you who are the numbskulls.
No, we, like most others, live on another planet to the one your kind live on.
What is the matter with you Observer? You either walk around with ear plugs and a sack over your head in order to miss all the science and scientific discussion; are mental or being paid by the fossil fuel industry.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Both you and Moll seem to have an exceptionally narrow view about what is happening to the biota of this planet and it about time you both started educating yourselves, because it is you who are the numbskulls.
No, we, like most others, live on another planet to the one your kind live on.
So much BS.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Both you and Moll seem to have an exceptionally narrow view about what is happening to the biota of this planet and it about time you both started educating yourselves, because it is you who are the numbskulls.
No, we, like most others, live on another planet to the one your kind live on.
What is the matter with you Observer? You either walk around with ear plugs and a sack over your head in order to miss all the science and scientific discussion; are mental or being paid by the fossil fuel industry.
Seems everything you say comes from Uranus
Postpocelipse said:
storms a-brewin
Hurricane expert: 10 years after Katrina, North Atlantic hurricane activity well below normal
SEA LEVEL RISE. 11800 BC TO PRESENT
.
.
AND NOTE HERE THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE BETWEEN 1930 & 1960
.
.
New Evidence Regarding Tropical Water Vapor Feedback, Lindzen’s Iris Effect, and the Missing Hotspot
Looks like the Observer has just got a parcel of global warming denier stuff from the American Fossil Fuel Industry stooges.
Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay below that has 2 parts: 1) How the government has been starving researchers who hold alternative opinions of funding, and 2) climate cycles show we are starting a cooling period.
Readers will recall that David Dilley is a 40-year meteorology veteran and the producer of the excellent video: Is Climate Change Dangerous? which first was presented at NTZ. Since then the video has been viewed more than 10,000 times and the NTZ story shared in social media over 800 times.
Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle
By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist
For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.
Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.
Many former research department heads, such as Dr. Reid Bryson (known as the Father of Climatology), openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/26/suppression-of-science-former-noaa-meteorologist-says-employees-were-cautioned-not-to-talk-about-natural-cycles/#sthash.HhEXOqei.5wPS4Ynq.dpuf
Guest essay by Jim Steele
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Dansgaard Oeschger Events and the Arctic Iris Effect
During the last Ice Age, Greenland’s average temperatures dramatically rose on average every 1500 years by 10°C +/- 5°C in a just matter of one or two decades, and then more gradually cooled as illustrated in Figure 1 below (8 of the 25 D-O events are numbered in red on upper graph; from Ahn 2008). These extreme temperature fluctuations between cold “stadials” that lasted about a thousand years and warm “interstadials” lasting decades are dubbed Dansgaard-Oeschger events (D-O events). These rapid temperature fluctuations not only rivaled the 100,000‑year fluctuations between maximum glacial cold and warm interglacial temperatures but D‑O warm events coincided with expanding Eurasian forests (Sánchez Goñi 2008, Jimenez-Moreno 2009), northward shifts of subtropical currents along the California coast (Hendy 2000), and shifts in belts of precipitation in northern South America (Peterson 2001).
Just 25 years ago most climate researchers were hesitant to accept initial Greenland ice core evidence suggesting such abrupt D‑O warming events (Dansgaard 1985). But as other Greenland ice cores verified their reality, it was clear that the only mechanism realistically capable of producing such abrupt warming was the sudden removal of insulating sea ice that allowed ventilation of heat previously stored in the Arctic as Dansgaard (1985) had first proposed. Still that begged the question ‘what caused the sudden loss of insulating sea ice’?
Abrupt D‑O warming and cooling suggested to researchers (Broecker 1985) that the Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC) turned “on” and “off”. Based on the misleading belief in the existence of a simplistic “ocean conveyor belt” (Wunsch 2007), researchers incorrectly interpreted a lack of deep-water formation as evidence of a lack of warm water flowing into the Arctic. However based on increasing proxy evidence (Rasmussen 2004, Ezat 2014), it is now understood that the inflow of warm Atlantic Waters never “shut off” but continued to enter the Arctic and warmed the subsurface layers.
The_observer said:
The Arctic Iris Effect, Dansgaard-Oeschger Events, and Climate Model Shortcomings. Lesson from Climate Past – part 1Guest essay by Jim Steele
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Dansgaard Oeschger Events and the Arctic Iris Effect
During the last Ice Age, Greenland’s average temperatures dramatically rose on average every 1500 years by 10°C +/- 5°C in a just matter of one or two decades, and then more gradually cooled as illustrated in Figure 1 below (8 of the 25 D-O events are numbered in red on upper graph; from Ahn 2008). These extreme temperature fluctuations between cold “stadials” that lasted about a thousand years and warm “interstadials” lasting decades are dubbed Dansgaard-Oeschger events (D-O events). These rapid temperature fluctuations not only rivaled the 100,000‑year fluctuations between maximum glacial cold and warm interglacial temperatures but D‑O warm events coincided with expanding Eurasian forests (Sánchez Goñi 2008, Jimenez-Moreno 2009), northward shifts of subtropical currents along the California coast (Hendy 2000), and shifts in belts of precipitation in northern South America (Peterson 2001).
Just 25 years ago most climate researchers were hesitant to accept initial Greenland ice core evidence suggesting such abrupt D‑O warming events (Dansgaard 1985). But as other Greenland ice cores verified their reality, it was clear that the only mechanism realistically capable of producing such abrupt warming was the sudden removal of insulating sea ice that allowed ventilation of heat previously stored in the Arctic as Dansgaard (1985) had first proposed. Still that begged the question ‘what caused the sudden loss of insulating sea ice’?
Abrupt D‑O warming and cooling suggested to researchers (Broecker 1985) that the Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC) turned “on” and “off”. Based on the misleading belief in the existence of a simplistic “ocean conveyor belt” (Wunsch 2007), researchers incorrectly interpreted a lack of deep-water formation as evidence of a lack of warm water flowing into the Arctic. However based on increasing proxy evidence (Rasmussen 2004, Ezat 2014), it is now understood that the inflow of warm Atlantic Waters never “shut off” but continued to enter the Arctic and warmed the subsurface layers.
Fabricating Climate Doom: looking at Jim Steele’s deception
>>This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who’s concerned about the health of our(their) Earth.<<
whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com
The_observer said:
Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles -Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay below that has 2 parts: 1) How the government has been starving researchers who hold alternative opinions of funding, and 2) climate cycles show we are starting a cooling period.
Readers will recall that David Dilley is a 40-year meteorology veteran and the producer of the excellent video: Is Climate Change Dangerous? which first was presented at NTZ. Since then the video has been viewed more than 10,000 times and the NTZ story shared in social media over 800 times.
Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle
By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist
For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.
Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.
Many former research department heads, such as Dr. Reid Bryson (known as the Father of Climatology), openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/26/suppression-of-science-former-noaa-meteorologist-says-employees-were-cautioned-not-to-talk-about-natural-cycles/#sthash.HhEXOqei.5wPS4Ynq.dpuf
>>So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they’re growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.<<
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm
The new Ice Age people might have had a point, but what they forget in the current hot/cold cycle, is that with our huge emissions of greenhouse gases, we have changed any likelihood of that happening.
Postpocelipse said:
I am the Walrus
Successful Walrus Conservation
The walrus is another example of improving environmental stewardship. Valued for its oil and ivory tusks, the Pacific walrus was subjected to intense commercial slaughter in the mid 1800s, and by the early 1900s, many worried they would soon go the way of the dinosaurs. Although population estimates have always been highly uncertain, as hunting was progressively limited, Pacific Walrus populations “increased from 50,000 to 100,000 animals in the late 1950s to more than 250,000 animals by 1985,” and they are believed to have now reached their maximum carrying capacity.557 As walrus numbers rebounded, they have crowded together at historic coastal haul-outs (Haul-outs are land locations where walruses congregate when not swimming). However some advocates are using the walrus’ recovery as evidence of ecological disruption caused by global warming and the loss of sea ice. But their fears would vanish if they had a more historical perspective.
cont
Plight of the Bumble Bees: How shabby climate analyses and lax peer review promote a dreadful remedy
In July 2015 the journal Science published Kerr et al’s Climate Change Impacts On Bumblebees Converge Across Continents. It was a woeful analysis hyped by the media. It did very little to further our understanding of the causes of bumblebee declines and more likely obscured the real problems. But it did illustrate why the public is becoming increasingly suspicious of “scientific claims” regards catastrophic climate change as well as demonstrating the inadequacy of the peer review process.
There were 4 major problems.
1) By employing a skewed statistical methodology and using inappropriate metrics, Kerr 2015 contradicted the biologists’ consensus (Goulson 2015) to argue bumblebees declines are independent of land use changes, pesticides and introduced pathogens.
2) Kerr 2015 results demonstrated that bees are not tracking their climate niche and are not responding to climate changes as predicted. Their data strongly suggests range shifts have been independent of climate change. Either the bees are insensitive to decades of climate change or climate change has had little impact on the bees’ critical microclimates. Nonetheless based on bad statistical modeling, they claimed range shifts were “independent of changing land uses or pesticides”, and then spun a climate catastrophe scenario by simply asserting the default cause must be climate change.
3) Kerr 2015 totally ignored the leading hypothesis that points to introduced pathogens as the cause of sudden declines and shifts in a select group of related North American Bees (Cameron 2014, The Xerces Society 2008). Kerr’s climate interpretation suggests transporting bumblebees to new northerly habitat, knowing it poses greater risks by spreading pathogens and further endangering susceptible species.
4) Kerr 2015 demonstrate that the journal Science strayed from objectivity into climate change advocacy. Science not only failed to properly edit this paper, they added an additional “news” commentary Bumblebees Aren’t Keeping Up With A Warming Planet and quote Kerr’s catastrophic view, “Climate change is crushing species in a vice”. The other global warming advocacy journal Nature ran a simultaneous apocalyptic story “Climate Change Crushes Bee Populations” encouraging wide spread media fear mongering.
The_observer said:
Postpocelipse said:
I am the Walrus
Successful Walrus Conservation
The walrus is another example of improving environmental stewardship. Valued for its oil and ivory tusks, the Pacific walrus was subjected to intense commercial slaughter in the mid 1800s, and by the early 1900s, many worried they would soon go the way of the dinosaurs. Although population estimates have always been highly uncertain, as hunting was progressively limited, Pacific Walrus populations “increased from 50,000 to 100,000 animals in the late 1950s to more than 250,000 animals by 1985,” and they are believed to have now reached their maximum carrying capacity.557 As walrus numbers rebounded, they have crowded together at historic coastal haul-outs (Haul-outs are land locations where walruses congregate when not swimming). However some advocates are using the walrus’ recovery as evidence of ecological disruption caused by global warming and the loss of sea ice. But their fears would vanish if they had a more historical perspective.
cont
What on earth are you ranting about?
The_observer said:
SEA LEVEL RISE. 11800 BC TO PRESENT
Thanks, observer. Does that “?w=720&h=523” at the end of the image set width & height? Trying it out.
It works.
History of Global Warming Deniers
1. No Global Warming, which was proved incorrect, so onto 2.
2. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.
3. Global Warming is happening, but is natural, so nothing to worry about.
4. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.
5. Global Warming is happening, but has nothing to do with our activities.
6. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.
7. Global Warming is NOT happening; instead we are heading towards another Ice Age.
8. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.
9. Global Warming does not affect the lives of wild animals.
10. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.
11. What can the Fossil Fuel Industry dream up next?
PermeateFree said:
History of Global Warming Deniers1. No Global Warming, which was proved incorrect, so onto 2.
2. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.3. Global Warming is happening, but is natural, so nothing to worry about.
4. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.5. Global Warming is happening, but has nothing to do with our activities.
6. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.7. Global Warming is NOT happening; instead we are heading towards another Ice Age.
8. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.9. Global Warming does not affect the lives of wild animals.
10. Deny all contrary evidence to create doubt, but eventually science shone through and the general public were swayed.11. What can the Fossil Fuel Industry dream up next?
If global warming is occurring then Santa Claus would cease to exist, try telling you kids that.
> History of Global Warming Deniers
In Australia, you could start with Goyder’s line. Goyder was a climate change denier from 1865. He was right, and those people from South Australia who believed in anthropogenic climate change payed the price by losing their livelihoods a few years later.
bob(from black rock) said:
If global warming is occurring then Santa Claus would cease to exist, try telling you kids that.
Which clause would that be under?
PermeateFree said:
History of Global Warming Deniers
Here’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
mollwollfumble said:
> History of Global Warming DeniersIn Australia, you could start with Goyder’s line. Goyder was a climate change denier from 1865. He was right, and those people from South Australia who believed in anthropogenic climate change payed the price by losing their livelihoods a few years later.
Don’t think climate change was on anyone’s agenda in 1865. Goyder was interested in rainfall zones that were sufficiently reliable to enable crops to be grown in most years, it was not climate change but the unreliability of Australian rainfall, especially in low rainfall zones. He did this by noting the vegetation, which was a good indicator as to the dominant rainfall zone (amongst other things) and was able to plot a reasonably accurate line. However in some years rainfall was sufficient above the line, so farming was commenced there too, but when the few good seasons passed, the normal rainfall was not sufficient to grow crops commercially and most farmers moved out of that zone.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
> History of Global Warming DeniersIn Australia, you could start with Goyder’s line. Goyder was a climate change denier from 1865. He was right, and those people from South Australia who believed in anthropogenic climate change payed the price by losing their livelihoods a few years later.
Don’t think climate change was on anyone’s agenda in 1865. Goyder was interested in rainfall zones that were sufficiently reliable to enable crops to be grown in most years, it was not climate change but the unreliability of Australian rainfall, especially in low rainfall zones. He did this by noting the vegetation, which was a good indicator as to the dominant rainfall zone (amongst other things) and was able to plot a reasonably accurate line. However in some years rainfall was sufficient above the line, so farming was commenced there too, but when the few good seasons passed, the normal rainfall was not sufficient to grow crops commercially and most farmers moved out of that zone.
I’m going to have to refresh my memory on that but I was under the impression that the failures of farmers were what caused Goyder to draw the line.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
History of Global Warming DeniersHere’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
With global warming you look at the trends, not a few recent years. I think you will find that the next El Nino event will increase current average temperatures considerably.
I include an accurate presentation of global warming over a longer period of time, which the increase of global warming is undeniable, although something tells me you will try.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
> History of Global Warming DeniersIn Australia, you could start with Goyder’s line. Goyder was a climate change denier from 1865. He was right, and those people from South Australia who believed in anthropogenic climate change payed the price by losing their livelihoods a few years later.
Don’t think climate change was on anyone’s agenda in 1865. Goyder was interested in rainfall zones that were sufficiently reliable to enable crops to be grown in most years, it was not climate change but the unreliability of Australian rainfall, especially in low rainfall zones. He did this by noting the vegetation, which was a good indicator as to the dominant rainfall zone (amongst other things) and was able to plot a reasonably accurate line. However in some years rainfall was sufficient above the line, so farming was commenced there too, but when the few good seasons passed, the normal rainfall was not sufficient to grow crops commercially and most farmers moved out of that zone.
I’m going to have to refresh my memory on that but I was under the impression that the failures of farmers were what caused Goyder to draw the line.
They were quickly taking up land further out, based on the myth that rain would follow the plough and with a few good years after the Goyder Line had been establish, his line was ignored in the rush to take up land.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
History of Global Warming DeniersHere’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
With global warming you look at the trends, not a few recent years. I think you will find that the next El Nino event will increase current average temperatures considerably.
I include an accurate presentation of global warming over a longer period of time, which the increase of global warming is undeniable, although something tells me you will try.
I see your graph starts from the coldest period since the last ice age finished
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:Here’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
With global warming you look at the trends, not a few recent years. I think you will find that the next El Nino event will increase current average temperatures considerably.
I include an accurate presentation of global warming over a longer period of time, which the increase of global warming is undeniable, although something tells me you will try.
I see your graph starts from the coldest period since the last ice age finished
There was relatively minor temperature variation prior to 1860 and certainly NOT an Ice Age. The dramatic temperature rise during the twentieth century far surpasses anything going back to the year 1000. This information is so easy to find, so why do you persist with your misinformation?
>>> There was relatively minor temperature variation prior to 1860 and certainly NOT an Ice Age<<<
Really?
.
.
.
Figure 5. ~90% of temperatures during the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent warming (Cuffy and Clow, 1997; Alley, 2000).
.
.
Figure 1. Sea surface temperature vs. time. Adapted from Sicre et al. (2008).
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:I think you will find that the next El Nino event will increase current average temperatures considerably.Here’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
The next el nino has nothing to do with your human caused global warming idiot
The_observer said:
The next el nino has nothing to do with human caused global warming
That’s like saying, “The MDBP has been formulated on drought years and data has been cherry picked,”
roughbarked said:
The_observer said:The next el nino has nothing to do with human caused global warming
That’s like saying, “The MDBP has been formulated on drought years and data has been cherry picked,”
or indeed, “The MDBA process lacks meaningful/accountable engagement or consultation and is instead just ‘presenting to’ and ‘lecturing at’ affected communities by using projective models based on questionable assumptions and claiming them as hard, indisputable facts.”
The_observer said:
>>> There was relatively minor temperature variation prior to 1860 and certainly NOT an Ice Age<<<Really?
.
.
.
Figure 5. ~90% of temperatures during the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent warming (Cuffy and Clow, 1997; Alley, 2000).
.
.
Figure 1. Sea surface temperature vs. time. Adapted from Sicre et al. (2008).
Iceland and Greenland do not represent the world. These are extreme environments regardless of anything else. Please stop bringing up this denier distorted information.
The_observer said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:I think you will find that the next El Nino event will increase current average temperatures considerably.Here’s the most accurate Global temp data we have.
Remote Sensing Systems satellite data
show me the global warming in that graph perm
LOL
The next el nino has nothing to do with your human caused global warming idiot
Well you seem to be very happy at presenting temperature reductions between El Nino events and to make stupid statements that we are now entering an Ice Age. El Nino events are natural and have been so for a very long time, all they do is create a short-term different weather pattern, where extremes are accentuated.
Do you really believe the crap you repeat here Observer, or are you just dim?
HAGRID: You’re a dinosaur, The_observer.
At this time it appears that not only will 2015 be another record high global temperature year, but that it will beat the previous record by 0.1 degrees.
dv said:
At this time it appears that not only will 2015 be another record high global temperature year, but that it will beat the previous record by 0.1 degrees.
All this despite the fact that old sol is at lowest ebb reorded.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
At this time it appears that not only will 2015 be another record high global temperature year, but that it will beat the previous record by 0.1 degrees.
All this despite the fact that old sol is at lowest ebb reorded.
Is it?
(Not saying you are wrong, but I can’t find much recent evidence either way).
And why is there so much about sun-spots? Why not just measure how much energy the thing is emitting?
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
dv said:
At this time it appears that not only will 2015 be another record high global temperature year, but that it will beat the previous record by 0.1 degrees.
All this despite the fact that old sol is at lowest ebb reorded.
Is it?
(Not saying you are wrong, but I can’t find much recent evidence either way).
And why is there so much about sun-spots? Why not just measure how much energy the thing is emitting?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-comedy-of-climate-change/6681526
had me a llittle read, haven’t quite the time to double check all the math etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
“Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”, of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called “climate alarmism”.”
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf
“cloudy–moist region appears to act as an infrared
adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions
free of upper-level clouds, which more effectively
permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to
resist changes in tropical surface temperature.
Moreover, on physical and observational grounds, it
appears that the same applies to moist and dry regions”