Page 27 of 55 FirstFirst ... 217181920212223242526272829303132333435363752 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 1098

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #521

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    ^As expected. Doomsday cultists respond to vexing dilemma the very same way they did when it was first brought up years ago.^

    Instead of embracing something that has been proven true Doomsday cultists embrace something that can't be proven. In this case, it can be, and is proven weekly, that weather forecasters have extreme difficulty when trying to forecast over a short period of just two weeks, but instead of accepting that, they accept a weather forecast that takes place 80 years in the future and that can't possibly be proven.

    In fact, the man-made global warming folks, for the most part, have given up on making 10 year climate forecasts because they've done it twice and been wrong both times. Now they come up with a time frame that goes beyond the lifespan of anyone who would be alive to check on its accurscy ...

    BW,

    You are clearly skeorical.od climate change.. What evidence would you need tomget you to change your mind, and accept Climate Change. If the answer is none, aren't you the "denier" the Climate Change proponents say you are?

    And even if some of the claims and predictions are wrong, does that always mean Climate Change proponents are completely wrong? Climate Change predictions could be wrong sometimes, but that not necessarily mean that its fundamenral premise is wrong. If the world isn't warming as fast as claimed, if doesn't automatically mean ir isn't warming, only that it will take longer to see the dire predictions claimed

    Some facts to ponder:

    1. Glaciers around the world have dramatically been greatly reduced in size when you compare rhem wirh photographs from the early 1900's. That is not speculation, it is fact. Now we can speculate other cause for the melting (soot from China calling on them and changing their abedo. For example), but warming remains the simplist answer.

    2. Maybe the Climate Change people are wrong. What would be the worst that could happen if we act as if what they say was true? Higher electric bills, maybe, spending a little extra money we didn't have to? And if they are right. We could avoid some very serious consequences. We spend money for car and house insurance that we hope we will never need, so think of the money spent on global warming like thr money spent on an insurance policy.

    3. Isn't the switch to recyxlables and green power a good idea? Sooner or later we will run out fossil fuel, if not wirhin 50 years, maybe within 500 years, or a thousand years. Since the shift to recyclable green power is inevitable, why not do it now? Isn't it extremely selfish to use up all the fossil fuel that took the earth 4 billion years to make in just a few generations?

    The Roman empire lasted a 1000 years, and I don't know about you, but I hope our Civilization will still be around a 1000 years from now. Shouldn't we be starting now to create a sustainable society that could last a 1000 years, 2000 years?
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM.

  2. #522
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    BW,

    You are clearly skeorical.od climate change.. What evidence would you need tomget you to change your mind, and accept Climate Change. If the answer is none, aren't you the "denier" the Climate Change proponents say you are?

    And even if some of the claims and predictions are wrong, does that always mean Climate Change proponents are completely wrong? Climate Change predictions could be wrong sometimes, but that not necessarily mean that its fundamenral premise is wrong. If the world isn't warming as fast as claimed, if doesn't automatically mean ir isn't warming, only that it will take longer to see the dire predictions claimed

    Some facts to ponder:

    1. Glaciers around the world have dramatically been greatly reduced in size when you compare rhem wirh photographs from the early 1900's. That is not speculation, it is fact. Now we can speculate other cause for the melting (soot from China calling on them and changing their abedo. For example), but warming remains the simplist answer.

    2. Maybe the Climate Change people are wrong. What would be the worst that could happen if we act as if what they say was true? Higher electric bills, maybe, spending a little extra money we didn't have to? And if they are right. We could avoid some very serious consequences. We spend money for car and house insurance that we hope we will never need, so think of the money spent on global warming like thr money spent on an insurance policy.

    3. Isn't the switch to recyxlables and green power a good idea? Sooner or later we will run out fossil fuel, if not wirhin 50 years, maybe within 500 years, or a thousand years. Since the shift to recyclable green power is inevitable, why not do it now? Isn't it extremely selfish to use up all the fossil fuel that took the earth 4 billion years to make in just a few generations?

    The Roman empire lasted a 1000 years, and I don't know about you, but I hope our Civilization will still be around a 1000 years from now. Shouldn't we be starting now to create a sustainable society that could last a 1000 years, 2000 years?
    Reads like one of those religious nuts that come to your door blabbering about 7th Day Adventist church.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  3. #523
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    It is Climate Change proponents like yourself use of words like denier that why so many people are skeptical of Climate Change. They might not understand all the science, but they can often understand when they are being conned, and when they are being insulted, and they don't trust people who are jerks and insulting like many Climate Change proponents like yourself are.
    It is denial. Not skepticism. There are a bunch of true skeptics on climate change but their skepticism is not about rejecting that CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gas impacting the climate now. They are skeptical on the measured equilibrium climate sensitivity estimated, on the strength of the water vapor feedback, on the strength of the different cloud feedbacks etc. But they are all using the climate science and are relying on data. They are not saying nonsense like CO2 saturation, CO2 is following the temp etc. etc.

    In my example, Easterbrook is a denier. He is the example used before by Stario where the guy said the water vapor feedback is wrong because relative humidity is decreasing. This is denial and wrong on every levels from a physical perspective (if you do not understand check what is relative humidity). Easterbrook has a long story of BS and simply denialism, there is no other word than this.

    The whole thread is filled with trial of intent and conspiracy theories to suggest that scientists are deliberately or unconsciously faking the data. The whole thread is filled with denial that CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gases in contradiction with the observation and with our understanding of the physics in the atmosphere.

    Right now, many just don't trust the Climate Change proponents. It isn't just a matter of deliberately lying, scientist could be biasing the data by ignoring certain contrary data or adjusting it for what they genuinely believe are justified reasons, but despite their genuine belief they could be wrong to do so. You have to trust the Climate Change proponents haven't and right now they don't. When you experience record breaking cold temperatures and the scientist proclaim it the warmest year ever, it makes you skeptical.
    You are constantly relying on "what-if" scenario without any evidences for this bias. This is OBVIOUS that you want to believe this. You want to believe the data is unreliable. This is simply the most comfortable outcome for you.

    You are cherry-picking sometimes one small issue in the instrumental or the methodology, on a very specific area, to discredit everything, the whole consensus. But never you are fact-checking the claims or even checking if these issues are really saying the opposite and contradicting the conclusion we have on the issue.

    In your reasoning, the climate scientists are guilty even before you have any clues or hints of possible biases.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  4. #524
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Reads like one of those religious nuts that come to your door blabbering about 7th Day Adventist church.
    How is your rock doing?
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  5. #525
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    How is your rock doing?
    Rocks* still all above the water level, right where they’ve always been. Still waiting on that magical sea rise to come any minute.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  6. #526
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Rocks* still all above the water level, right where they’ve always been. Still waiting on that magical sea rise to come any minute.
    Good. Keep watching. Call the scientists when it's happening.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  7. #527

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Rocks* still all above the water level, right where they’ve always been. Still waiting on that magical sea rise to come any minute.
    So...do you think the worldwide scientific community is just...lying about sea rise that has already happened since you were young? Forget anything about climate change causing this; you literally think that the sea level has not increased, for any reason, over recent decades because of some rocks you looked at on your property?
    Last edited by The spartan; September 20, 2019 at 06:56 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  8. #528

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    It is denial. Not skepticism. There are a bunch of true skeptics on climate change but their skepticism is not about rejecting that CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gas impacting the climate now. They are skeptical on the measured equilibrium climate sensitivity estimated, on the strength of the water vapor feedback, on the strength of the different cloud feedbacks etc. But they are all using the climate science and are relying on data. They are not saying nonsense like CO2 saturation, CO2 is following the temp etc. etc.
    It is an acknowledged fact, that in previous warming events, CO2 did in fact follow temperature, at least initially. So that is not "nonsense" as you claim.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but even at 400 ppm, it is still a small component of the atmosphere. I remember in school years ago, only CO2 was talked about as a greenhouse, the greenhouse effect of water, which contributes to the majority of the greenhouse effect on earth, was not mentioned. Now, they probably do mention the fact that water is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but not years ago.

    With an attitude like yours, you simply wont win over many skeptics, and you can expect people like Trump to keep getting elect

    You are constantly relying on "what-if" scenario without any evidences for this bias. This is OBVIOUS that you want to believe this. You want to believe the data is unreliable. This is simply the most comfortable outcome for you.

    You are cherry-picking sometimes one small issue in the instrumental or the methodology, on a very specific area, to discredit everything, the whole consensus. But never you are fact-checking the claims or even checking if these issues are really saying the opposite and contradicting the conclusion we have on the issue.

    In your reasoning, the climate scientists are guilty even before you have any clues or hints of possible biases.
    No, I am trying to explain what people I know actually think, and explain their logic, and why they don't trust Climate Change proponents like you.

    You clearly haven't gotten the message. Sure, many of the skeptics are just plain wrong, but calling any who disagrees and accuse of underhanded motives is not going to get them to change their mind. Despite what you seem to think, most skeptics are not skeptics because they are in the pocket of the oil companies, and it is insulting to imply they are. Despite all the evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity, there are still a few scientist who reject it, and have come up with alternate theories, and General Relativity has a lot more evidence than Climate Change, yet the dissenting scientist to General Relativity are treated with a lot more respect than you and many other skeptics have ever shown to Climate Change skeptics.


    In case you haven't noticed, Trump won the last election, and if you want people like Trump to continue winning, just keep on doing what you have been doing. Heck, every time I read what you write it moves into the skeptic camp, and makes me more skeptical, and just makes me want to buy the biggest gas guzzling SUV I can and burn as much gas as I can just to spite you. I am surprise you don't burn the Climate Change skeptics at the stakes for their heresy.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 20, 2019 at 03:58 PM.

  9. #529
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    It is an acknowledged fact, that in previous warming events, CO2 did in fact follow temperature, at least initially. So that is not "nonsense" as you claim.
    In the way the deniers are using it, it is a nonsense because they think it's two opposing things. They cannot (or they don't want to) think of those as feedback processes. Like Stario did multiple of times in this thread, ad nauseam.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but even at 400 ppm, it is still a small component of the atmosphere. I remember in school years ago, only CO2 was talked about as a greenhouse, the greenhouse effect of water, which contributes to the majority of the greenhouse effect on earth, was not mentioned. Now, they probably do mention the fact that water is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but not years ago.
    Well, let me quote Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin (in 1905):

    "Water vapor, confessedly the greatest thermal absorbent in the atmosphere, is dependent on temperature for its amount, and if another agent, as CO2, not so dependent, raises the temperature of the surface, it calls into function a certain amount of water vapor which further absorbs heat, raises the temperature and calls forth more vapor"

    I am pretty sure most of the teachers in school doesn't know exactly how works the greenhouse effect. This is the oversimplification for the youngs and it is correct to focus on the CO2 since it is the main greenhouse gas to control the temperature in Earth's system, even if its effect imply a feedback through the water vapor. Without any non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor couldn't stand long in the atmosphere.

    With an attitude like yours, you simply wont win over many skeptics, and you can expect people like Trump to keep getting elect
    I am pretty sure he will be elected again. But anyway, I won't win over many deniers... because they are deniers. It's a matter of trust in the scientific community in the first place, this thread clearly shown it. Skeptics are not assuming that scientists are inherently worst than the rest of humanity.

    No, I am trying to explain what people I know actually think, and explain their logic, and why they don't trust Climate Change proponents like you.
    If they have this distrust and this feeling about the scientific community, assuming by default they have bad intents or a collective cognitive bias about this issue, they won't trust me either since I am a scientist too.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  10. #530
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    So...do you think the worldwide scientific community is just...lying about sea rise that has already happened since you were young? Forget anything about climate change causing this; you literally think that the sea level has not increased, for any reason, over recent decades because of some rocks you looked at on your property?
    Tide level is unchanged. Did I stutter?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  11. #531

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Tide level is unchanged. Did I stutter?
    ...So you don't think the sea level has changed, or do you?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  12. #532

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...So you don't think the sea level has changed, or do you?

    A six inch rise in level is actually harder to measure than you think. How do you measure it? The highest water level at maximum tides? For a given local area, the level might have risen for various factors. As I previously gave an examle of, most of ancient Alexandria, Egypt is now under water and that was not due to rising sea levels becau of Global Warming. And there are other cities around the world that used to be on land but are now underwater, and riding water levels due to Global Waeming. The heights of tides can be affect by changes in geography, and simply because we are seeing higher tides. The tires in the Bay of Fundy are quite impressive due the geology of the area.


    So do they have measuirnf stations along the entire Earth's sboreline, including all the continents and the islands? Given that height of the rides are effect by such factors as the sun and the moon, they they simultaneous mearue the tides when they are predicted to be the biggest and lowest? Do.they just refulsrrly monitor the water levels at the same time global with respect to GMT? Donthey just measure thr high and low tidr positions, which will be at different time at different places? How.do they correlate all that to calculate global sea level? Have they compared the calculated tidal heights with the obsevrd ones? Or do they just measure rhr water level after high tide and if so, how long after high tide and low tide?

    If the sea level has risen, shouldn't we be changing the nights of all the mountains to reflect the fact? Shouldn't the height of Mt. Everest and all other land be listed as 6" lower?

  13. #533
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    A six inch rise in level is actually harder to measure than you think. How do you measure it? The highest water level at maximum tides? For a given local area, the level might have risen for various factors. As I previously gave an examle of, most of ancient Alexandria, Egypt is now under water and that was not due to rising sea levels becau of Global Warming. And there are other cities around the world that used to be on land but are now underwater, and riding water levels due to Global Waeming. The heights of tides can be affect by changes in geography, and simply because we are seeing higher tides. The tires in the Bay of Fundy are quite impressive due the geology of the area.


    So do they have measuirnf stations along the entire Earth's sboreline, including all the continents and the islands? Given that height of the rides are effect by such factors as the sun and the moon, they they simultaneous mearue the tides when they are predicted to be the biggest and lowest? Do.they just refulsrrly monitor the water levels at the same time global with respect to GMT? Donthey just measure thr high and low tidr positions, which will be at different time at different places? How.do they correlate all that to calculate global sea level? Have they compared the calculated tidal heights with the obsevrd ones? Or do they just measure rhr water level after high tide and if so, how long after high tide and low tide?

    You are rising honest questions but don't you think geophysicists are working on these issues for a very long time? Sea level rise measurements are one of the most researched topic, there are thousand and thousand of publication on this. Trying to improve the methods, criticizing the issues emerging from the others, correcting these issues, using new methods to compare etc. etc.

    2014. Sea level: measuring the bounding surfaces of the ocean. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2013.0336
    2015. The Balancing of the Sea-Level Budget. https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-015-0012-8
    2015. Improved sea level record over the satellite altimetry era (1993–2010) from the Climate Change Initiative project https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/374002/1/os-11-67-2015.pdf
    2017. A 25-Year Satellite Altimetry-Based Global Mean Sea Level Record. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/...781315151779-5
    2017. Detection of sea level fingerprints derived from GRACE gravity data. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017GL074070
    2019. Sea-level fingerprints emergent from GRACE mission data. https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/11/629/2019/


    How good were the old forecasts of sea level rise? https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/20...ea-level-rise/
    Sea Level “For Dummies” https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/20...l-for-dummies/
    22-year Sea Level Rise - TOPEX/JASON https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4345

    If the sea level has risen, shouldn't we be changing the nights of all the mountains to reflect the fact? Shouldn't the height of Mt. Everest and all other land be listed as 6" lower?
    A hypothetical sphere called the geoid is actually used as a baseline measure for altitude, which won't change any time soon.
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/science...o-be-adjusted/
    https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopener...asurement.html
    Last edited by Genava; September 21, 2019 at 01:33 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  14. #534
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier
    You clearly haven't gotten the message. Sure, many of the skeptics are just plain wrong, but calling any who disagrees and accuse of underhanded motives is not going to get them to change their mind. Despite what you seem to think, most skeptics are not skeptics because they are in the pocket of the oil companies, and it is insulting to imply they are. Despite all the evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity, there are still a few scientist who reject it, and have come up with alternate theories, and General Relativity has a lot more evidence than Climate Change, yet the dissenting scientist to General Relativity are treated with a lot more respect than you and many other skeptics have ever shown to Climate Change skeptics.
    Comparing the skepticism among physicists with the denialism of the contrarians on the topic is dishonest. The best comparison should be done with the era of tobacco lobbyism and negative health impact denial.

    Like the Heartland Institute, that was an active think tank on the issue of tobacco regulation before to focus on climate change. Who was organizing the last conference of climate deniers in Washington Trump Hotel? The Heartland Institute. Both the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute are related to the Koch network and to oil companies, they shared a common history with some founders and directors coming from each other.

    99% of the denial arguments from conservatives are nonsense or conspiracy accusations. There is only a very few arguments from the contrarians that are honest.

    What amazes me is how much you are trying to cherry-pick everything from the scientific community to find a way to criticize the whole and in the other side you are IGNORING THE HUGE BUNCH of nonsense and lies spread by the deniers on the topic. Most of the time you were responding to me, not to B.W. or Stario BS. This is obvious the position I defend bother you beyond a scientific perspective.


    Heck, every time I read what you write it moves into the skeptic camp, and makes me more skeptical, and just makes me want to buy the biggest gas guzzling SUV I can and burn as much gas as I can just to spite you. I am surprise you don't burn the Climate Change skeptics at the stakes for their heresy.
    Yeah... you read the entire BS from B.W. and Stario but it's my stuff that moves you in the side of the contrarians.

    Do not try to present yourself as an objective skeptic when you started being skeptical much on one side of the arguments. The way you interpreted the Wadham case, the rural vs. urban differences in temperature etc. you started immediately from the contrarian point. You started the talk with these kind of messages:

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    And the Climate Change proponents have tried to hide and minimize the fact that Greenland ice core samples show that temperatures start rising before CO2 level started to rise. While they have no choice but to admit the fact, naturally they insist that all the subsequent rise in temperature must be due to CO2, rather than admit the possibility they were wrong, and the rise in temperature was not due to CO2. Any data that doesn't fit their theory will be just explained away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Still, it is up to the Climate Change proponents ts to figure out ur magnitude of the problem. But it would explain why they say 2018 was 5th hottest year on record, when it certainly didn't seem to me to be particular warm, not anywhere near the warmest years I can recall. Urban sprawl is growing worldwide.
    Your skeptical mind seems to use two yardsticks and two sets of scales. : https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15782256

    You were having a very firm position on the matter of CO2 physical and greenhouse properties while this was wrong: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15781889

    A true skeptic is skeptical about everything he read and skeptical about his own interpretation. A skeptic is careful with his statements. A skeptic verify everything and try to understand the basics behind an issue before to get a position on it. I really not have the feeling you are one.


    I gave you a non partisan review, what I think is the real skepticism from people having the proper background to deal with the information:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    If you are looking to a non partisan review of climate news:
    https://www.facebook.com/ClimateFeedback/
    https://climatefeedback.org/

    A few examples:

    Senator Sanders’ claim that climate change is making tornadoes worse isn’t supported by published research https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...shed-research/

    Claim that cows have more impact on climate than cars depends on the timescale https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...nancial-times/

    The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...ndrew-griffin/

    Metro’s claims of coming “mini ice age” have no basis in reality https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...is-in-reality/

    Oceans are currently acidifying, claims to the contrary contradict observations https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...-observations/

    Earth is not at risk of becoming a hothouse like Venus, as Stephen Hawking claimed https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...g-claimed-bbc/
    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Nor does it help when some Global Warming Alarmist make wild predictions such as "Climate Change could lead to human extinction", without other Climate Change proponents taking them to task. The silence of other Climate Change proponents means they are endorsing such views, and the excuse when the predictions don't come to pass that they only represent a minority isn't going to cut any slack.
    By the way on this nonsense accusation:

    Doomsday scenarios are as harmful as climate change denial by Michael E. Mann.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f40_story.html

    Prediction by Extinction Rebellion’s Roger Hallam that climate change will kill 6 billion people by 2100 is unsupported
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...er-hallam-bbc/

    A skeptic my a** you are just a zealot that try to look like a honest person.
    Last edited by Genava; September 21, 2019 at 04:04 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  15. #535
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    You are rising honest questions but don't you think geophysicists are working on these issues for a very long time? Sea level rise measurements are one of the most researched topic, there are thousand and thousand of publication on this. Trying to improve the methods, criticizing the issues emerging from the others, correcting these issues, using new methods to compare etc. etc.

    2014. Sea level: measuring the bounding surfaces of the ocean. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2013.0336
    2015. The Balancing of the Sea-Level Budget. https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-015-0012-8
    2015. Improved sea level record over the satellite altimetry era (1993–2010) from the Climate Change Initiative project https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/374002/1/os-11-67-2015.pdf
    2017. A 25-Year Satellite Altimetry-Based Global Mean Sea Level Record. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/...781315151779-5
    2017. Detection of sea level fingerprints derived from GRACE gravity data. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017GL074070
    2019. Sea-level fingerprints emergent from GRACE mission data. https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/11/629/2019/


    How good were the old forecasts of sea level rise? https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/20...ea-level-rise/
    Sea Level “For Dummies” https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/20...l-for-dummies/
    22-year Sea Level Rise - TOPEX/JASON https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4345



    A hypothetical sphere called the geoid is actually used as a baseline measure for altitude, which won't change any time soon.
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/science...o-be-adjusted/
    https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopener...asurement.html
    Good to see the church has their best priest working on it. Is that paid through Trudeau’s carbon tithe?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  16. #536
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Good to see the church has their best priest working on it. Is that paid through Trudeau’s carbon tithe?
    Touched a nerve? Sorry that you have to fall so low to keep face.
    Last edited by Genava; September 21, 2019 at 08:30 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  17. #537
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    BW,

    You are clearly skeorical.od climate change.. What evidence would you need tomget you to change your mind, and accept Climate Change. If the answer is none, aren't you the "denier" the Climate Change proponents say you are?
    Whose denying climate change? I've never claimed that there is no climate change or that the climate doesn't change. Get your terminology right. All I'm saying is that if climate variables are going to be studied, it should be done without political interference and without introducing manipulated data to make computer models produce the desired results.

  18. #538
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Whose denying climate change? I've never claimed that there is no climate change or that the climate doesn't change. Get your terminology right. All I'm saying is that if climate variables are going to be studied, it should be done without political interference and without introducing manipulated data to make computer models produce the desired results.
    Do you think the work of Gilbert Norman Plass got political interference to make up the story? https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
    Do you think this President’s Science Advisory Committee Report got political interference to make up the story? http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/
    Do you think the National Research Council got political interference to make up the story? https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

    Do you think Frank Capra got political interference to make up the story too?


    Our understanding of the current climate change predate the first incontrovertible evidences for the warming. We suspected very early that accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere would cause an increase in global temperature.
    Last edited by Genava; September 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  19. #539

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Reads like one of those religious nuts that come to your door blabbering about 7th Day Adventist church.
    Reads like a Trump supporter with all of the intellectual connotations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    A six inch rise in level is actually harder to measure than you think. How do you measure it? The highest water level at maximum tides? For a given local area, the level might have risen for various factors. As I previously gave an examle of, most of ancient Alexandria, Egypt is now under water and that was not due to rising sea levels becau of Global Warming. And there are other cities around the world that used to be on land but are now underwater, and riding water levels due to Global Waeming. The heights of tides can be affect by changes in geography, and simply because we are seeing higher tides. The tires in the Bay of Fundy are quite impressive due the geology of the area.


    So do they have measuirnf stations along the entire Earth's sboreline, including all the continents and the islands? Given that height of the rides are effect by such factors as the sun and the moon, they they simultaneous mearue the tides when they are predicted to be the biggest and lowest? Do.they just refulsrrly monitor the water levels at the same time global with respect to GMT? Donthey just measure thr high and low tidr positions, which will be at different time at different places? How.do they correlate all that to calculate global sea level? Have they compared the calculated tidal heights with the obsevrd ones? Or do they just measure rhr water level after high tide and if so, how long after high tide and low tide?

    If the sea level has risen, shouldn't we be changing the nights of all the mountains to reflect the fact? Shouldn't the height of Mt. Everest and all other land be listed as 6" lower?
    Fair questions, one that would take me hours to research. However, why are you pre-occupied with one question? How do you look at dozens of different indicators and come to a "skeptic" conclusion? One does not have to consider man-made climate change a fact, but being a skeptic is a little far-fetched.
    Last edited by Love Mountain; September 21, 2019 at 03:37 PM.

  20. #540
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Do you think the work of Gilbert Norman Plass got political interference to make up the story? https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
    Do you think this President’s Science Advisory Committee Report got political interference to make up the story? http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/
    Do you think the National Research Council got political interference to make up the story? https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

    Do you think Frank Capra got political interference to make up the story too?


    Our understanding of the current climate change predate the first incontrovertible evidences for the warming. We suspected very early that accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere would cause an increase in global temperature.
    Bless yore heart. When you get into the real world, save this post and reread it whenever you get a career history.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •