Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And this one was omitted.




And - no science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

Boy, if you keep this up I'm going to start having bad dreams about this image. Might just have to print it out and use it as my next paper target to exercise my 2nd Amend. rights (that one was for you, L-E). What is this, the 3rd or 4th time you've posted the black bowling ball graph?

I must be getting nostalgic again, but the whole kabash on the "consensus" comes down to a consensus on what? Most scientists, including prominent skeptics, believe that AGW exists and humans have had some influence on the planet's climate, including warming. How much warming and what are its impacts? That's when the "consensus" breaks down.

That's the truth, but we prefer to ignore that one too. So let's just keep posting distorting information in case there's someone new online who missed the last 3,000+ posts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But how much of it is attributable to humans?

Almost all of of it.

we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ±0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02−0.01±0.02 K).

A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution - Online First - Springer

Natural causes seem to contribute to cooling,

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Boy, if you keep this up I'm going to start having bad dreams about this image. Might just have to print it out and use it as my next paper target to exercise my 2nd Amend. rights (that one was for you, L-E). What is this, the 3rd or 4th time you've posted the black bowling ball graph?

I must be getting nostalgic again, but the whole kabash on the "consensus" comes down to a consensus on what? Most scientists, including prominent skeptics, believe that AGW exists and humans have had some influence on the planet's climate, including warming. How much warming and what are its impacts? That's when the "consensus" breaks down.

That's the truth, but we prefer to ignore that one too. So let's just keep posting distorting information in case there's someone new online who missed the last 3,000+ posts.

Why do not just read James Powell?

http://jamespowell.org/index.html

The truth will set you free.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM
Which obviously means that it is also 3°C cooler in the southern hemisphere summer than during its winter.

Nope. That is not what that sentence says.

Sigh!.

Yet another basic failure to comprehend

Northern hemisphere winter = southern hemisphere summer and vice versa.

Ergo:
"The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the northern hemisphere winter than during its summer." (direct quote from article)
is exactly the same as
"The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the southern hemisphere summer than during its winter."

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If anyone has suggestions on high quality, high efficiency panels... Please let me know.

Lake-effect and Jack.... Please take note. Start putting your money where your mouth is.

Sunpower, without a doubt.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Not the 97% Meme Myth again...sheesh this was shown to be a scam what...dozens of pages ago?

Kinda like:
4 out of 5 Dentists Recommend Crest tooth paste.

Must we really list all the "Consensus Myths" that have been shattered over the years.

Anyone who uses the Consensus argument doesn't understand Science...because Science ISN'T about consensus...it's about the Scientific Method, which the MMGW Cultists Run from, so they use the fake Consensus as cover.

Only one thing to add.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

With perhaps one notable exception:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic | New York Times

Muller's supposed skepticism was thoroughly debunked a couple of thousand posts ago. Do we really need to revisit it?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I have a thought experiment for all of you:

Imagine some freshwater ice cubes in a cup. Fresh water is added until the cup is full, then the ice cubes are allowed to melt. Will the water level rise, fall, or stay the same?

Why?

Next question. Same cup, same freshwater ice cubes, but this time salt water is added. Again, the ice cubes are allowed to melt. Will the water level rise, fall, or stay the same?

Why?

.

In the first cases the water level stays the same. Second case water will rise a tad. Due to different densities. Plus as the water warms it expands a tad too.

If all the sea ice in the world melted that would raise the oceans about 2 inches. Not something, I'm going to worry about.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

In the first cases the water level stays the same. Second case water will rise a tad. Due to different densities. Plus as the water warms it expands a tad too.

If all the sea ice in the world melted that would raise the oceans about 2 inches. Not something, I'm going to worry about.

Very good. Couldn't stay away from Google.

There are all sorts of bits and pieces to consider when calculating the effects of global warming. As Earth continues to warm sea ice and ice shelves will melt long before the bulk of ice caps melt. While I'll agree that 1-1/2" to 2" of sea level rise doesn't seem like much, it adds to all the other forces increasing sea level. And for those millions of people living extremely close to sea level, every inch increases the probability of disaster for them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Muller's supposed skepticism was thoroughly debunked a couple of thousand posts ago. Do we really need to revisit it?

Muller was a skeptic, not a denier. Learn the difference.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No you do not understand. 1981 -2010 is the current WMO standard.



http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/cc...tenormals1.pdf

Jack I do get it really I do and it seems you keep changing to support your views
The article you linked to that started this little exchange said in it and the paragraph I quoted that they were using the 1951 to 1980 average as a baseline.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack I do get it really I do and it seems you keep changing to support your views
The article you linked to that started this little exchange said in it and the ragraph I quoted that they were using the 1951 to 1980 average as a baseline.

That was a previous baseline.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But how much of it is attributable to humans?

An image is worth a thousand words



The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years in two categories: human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers are best estimates from each study.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Go to this NOAA web site. Click on any of the arrows and it will tell you how long that tide station has been in operation, how much sea level has risen during that period, and what the projected rate of increase is.

OK the is actually directed at every post concerning sea level changes. I have posted this before and most if not all of the sea level changes I'm not posting the links again. Think techthonic shift and resultant upheaval. Remember the Indian ocean quake in 2004?
Well that one quake caused a rise of between 1 and 2 mm world wide. The Costa Rica quake later that year did approx 1 mm rise. Now think about all the quakes that happen all the time. And I'm not even mentioning the sub surface volcanic activity . ( look at t mid Atlantic ridge.)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That was a previous baseline.

I know that was a prior and superseded baseline
However the article used the 1951 to 1980 baseline in the text of the article