Ocean acidifcation .

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Green New Deal is the answer.





























If the question is define stupid

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

first off the error . The earth is a sphere and his calculations are not based on that fact .

Recalculate factoring in for the curvature by reducing the energy absorption numbers by just over 1/2 .

Not actually sure if you read the article given your response. Where *specifically* in the article did you think the author failed to take into account the spherical nature of the earth?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lets see you actually said the real truth here

" a climate we don't know much about. "

Where is this sea level rise that they keep alarming us about? ( and natural or not)
when do we need to relocate coastal residents ( what timeframe )
what is a mass instinction of species? Btw we have a mass explosion of diversification of species. Relocate them why ? ( we are talking about approximately 2mm per year rise of sea level due to natural causes. )
you really need to do your homework .

A couple of remarks.. If you bother to see the J Englander video B. posted you'd find out about the sea level rise.. The only diversification of species are bacterial, especially the hospital kind of.. I know it's waste of time to explain nothing to you but I had that extra time right now.. Besides it's 4mm annually now..

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

A couple of remarks.. If you bother to see the J Englander video B. posted you'd find out about the sea level rise.. The only diversification of species are bacterial, especially the hospital kind of.. I know it's waste of time to explain nothing to you but I had that extra time right now.. Besides it's 4mm annually now..

4mm my arse. Provide empirical proof of that assertion .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Not actually sure if you read the article given your response. Where *specifically* in the article did you think the author failed to take into account the spherical nature of the earth?

that fact is right there in his math equation. Do the math .

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Climate change is real and 90% natural 10%+/- man influenced (so negligible effect) the climate is cyclical and dependant on solar activity.
bet you 2019 will be cooler than 2018 and 2020 will be even cooler .
Steak dinner?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/globa...emental/page-1

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Marc1

. . . humans with their 0.0012% contribution to the atmosphere are causing catastrophic and precipitous climate melt down, and that such minuscule contribution is "pollution".

Apparently there's no need to communicate this part of THE science when it sounds so much better to preach the part of THE science which says that humans have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. Afaik both stats are undisputed, it's just that the latter is soooo much more ALARMING.

[newhaul]

Ok here is a longer study for everyone to digest.
https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/scie...MheT2yqfCN9-IM

U of Minnesota researchers uncover surprising effects of climate patterns in ancient China | (e) Science News

[Marc1]

I have another go at sea levels allegedly rising.

I am 70 ... I lived all my life on waterfront property, in Australia and in Argentina. I have family in Europe that own waterfront property going back over 200 years. No not in Venice ...
We have one of the oldest if not the oldest record of sea water levels right here in Sydney.
My personal observation and that of my family confirms sea level rise is negligible in my lifetime and my ancestors life time, from personal observation in 3 different continents.

So why is it that we are supposed to have one meter, two meters, 9 meters sea rise? Where is it?
And please don't post copy and paste graphs produced by some scumbag using manipulated satellite data.

And since all of you know about tides and ebbs and king tides and all of that, I am sure you coincide with me, regardless of your own views on the climate debate, that in order to evaluate sea level rise by personal inspection you must live or visit a site long enough to see the difference in similar circumstances without being fooled by natural variations, king tides, floods storms, draught or any other influence. I know that ground level variation can not be easily measured so we may let that one go.

So can someone post honest footage of before and after showing this alleged massive rises that will reach the middle of the statue of liberty next month?

Our beloved (what can I say) Prime Minister has just visited one of the pacific islands and given away half a billion of my tax money towards climate change (whatever that will do). Coincidentally new data shows, that particular island is actually gaining hundreds of hectares from sediments deposited on it. The island is growing yet we throw money at them. The reason is of course purely political because we want the upper hand before China and NZ rush in.

The "good guys" do it again. Pretend to combat a made up threat for political and economic gain.
All with your warmist help mind you.
Keep on posting how the world is going to end next week.

Courage is knowing what not to fear. Plato

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Marc1

So why is it that we are supposed to have one meter, two meters, 9 meters sea rise? Where is it?
And please don't post copy and paste graphs produced by some scumbag using manipulated satellite data.

And since all of you know about tides and ebbs and king tides and all of that, I am sure you coincide with me, regardless of your own views on the climate debate, that in order to evaluate sea level rise by personal inspection you must live or visit a site long enough to see the difference in similar circumstances without being fooled by natural variations, king tides, floods storms, draught or any other influence. I know that ground level variation can not be easily measured so we may let that one go.

So can someone post honest footage of before and after showing this alleged massive rises that will reach the middle of the statue of liberty next month?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently there's no need to communicate this part of THE science when it sounds so much better to preach the part of THE science which says that humans have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. Afaik both stats are undisputed, it's just that the latter is soooo much more ALARMING.

Of course the quoted percentage is wrong by an order of magnitude and is totally irrelevant as well. When people quote the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere trying to make the point it can’t matter they are just showing they don’t understand the first principles of the problem. The other 99.9% of the gases in dry air are transparent to heat. So the 40% increase is the factual increase of the heat trapping gases.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that fact is right there in his math equation. Do the math .

Thabk you for confirming that you didn’t actually read it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Of course the quoted percentage is wrong by an order of magnitude and is totally irrelevant as well. When people quote the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere trying to make the point it can’t matter they are just showing they don’t understand the first principles of the problem. The other 99.9% of the gases in dry air are transparent to heat. So the 40% increase is the factual increase of the heat trapping gases.

wrong and right I really love the bs that you are trying to spread here shows a real likelihood of Berkeley college influence .
The correct percentage is .04% is co2 and .04% of that is human and they can't even say what part is from natural life processes and from burning of ancient plants.

Lastly
There is no such thing as dry air in the atmosphere . So peddle your falsehoods elsewhere .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Thabk you for confirming that you didn’t actually read it.

do the math it is wrong the tsi w2m is about half of what the paper quoted.

They should actually do the math instead of parroting their overloaded .

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You reply by saying it is a straw man argument because we are discussing ocean acidification and not sea rises? ... hang on ... didn't we debate global warming? And useless subsidies?
I see they are all strawman arguments when you have no answers ... that's ok. I am used to that. Seen it for 30 years over and over.

May be I just Imagined your Imaginary reply?

The strawman made me do it