- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,364
- Reaction score
- 53,043
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Keep up the arm waving.
Would you criticize inflating the y-axis to make temperature changes look larger?
Keep up the arm waving.
Would you criticize inflating the y-axis to make temperature changes look larger?
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
You’re unwilling to actually answer a question about deceptive graphing. Curious.
Any graph can be deceptive. That's not the point.
And you’re ok with a deceptive one when it’s your guy doing it.
I just take them as they come.
I have, but while there appears to be a minor correlation between CO2 and the surface troposphere system temperatures,
there is almost zero correlation between CO2 and sea level.
Many of the sea level records are well over a century old, and the most common change in rate is a slowdown.
However, I will agree that 7-feet is an exageration. The upper-end, however, is over 3 feet by 2100.
May be one of the most dishonest statements you ever made.
It would be nice if you would agree that three feet is also an exaggeration.
Three feet by 2100 comes to an average of over 11 mm/yr starting right now.
So when is this going to begin to happen? The answer to that rhetorical question
is not anytime soon, and the longer "soon" takes to get here the faster the
average rate will have to be. Oh, and what was the lower-end? Today's rate
of 3 mm/yr extrapolates out to less than a foot by 2100 and that's if it remains
that high.
Well anyway, yes, seven feet is an exaggeration, and it begs the question as to
why the news media exaggerates or at least reports exaggerations - exactly
where did that seven foot figure come from? I wrote earlier, "Have you considered
the possibility that there's something rotten in Denmark?"
3 feet is the upper end of the model. The lower end is 20 inches. More heat,
more melting glaciers and ice = sea level rise. No doubt about it. So far the
models have shown to be conservative, so probably closer to the upper end.
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.
Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.
Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.
20 inches by 2100 comes to an average of 6.2 mm/yr for the next 82 years.
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
You know, the language of science is numbers and a lot of those numbers that
make up the body of science is just plain old arithmetic. It doesn't take much
effort, even with paper and pencil, to figure out that what's being projected
requires that the rate double right now.
Obviously that's not happening, and I'm just asking when it's going to begin to
happen. I look forward to your answer.
Nice! The projections of sea level rise, agree with the projections of warming by models.View attachment 67232022
Or there is this recent article, based on a study by the National Academy of Science.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html
That projection agrees perfectly with climate models used in the latest International Panel on Climate Change report, which show sea level rise to be between 52 and 98 centimeters by 2100 for a "business as usual" scenario (in which greenhouse emissions continue without reduction).
However, I will agree that 7-feet is an exageration. The upper-end, however, is over 3 feet by 2100.
How in the world can you have been immersed in this stuff for a decade and not grasped that virtually all projections of sea level and temperature are accelerating curves?
Despite the rhetoric from the fossil-fuel industry pundits, the models have been extremely accurate so far. They know what they're talking about. We're talking about study after study by scientists all over the world. Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect. In other words, once melting starts in areas, it feeds on itself. Thus the non-linear discussion of ThreeGoofs.
I wrote:
When is this doubling of today's rate going to begin to happen?
...
I look forward to your answer.
In a few weeks it will be thirty years since Dr. James Hansen famous testimony
before the United States Congress, and it's not happening in all that time. Yes
the projections are accelerating curves. I'm just asking when it's going to begin
to accelerate. Rewriting historical data which was done to the satellite record
earlier this year doesn't actually change the physical world.
This little discussion has been about sea level and you talk about floating sea ice:
"Water tends to absord sunlight, while ice tends to reflect."As Threegoofs points out, I've been at this for over a decade and in all that time
folks on your side of the coin never seem to get the message that floating ice
doesn't run up sea level when it melts. Oh they will acknowledge that fact,
but just like you, they'll be right back at it a short time later.
There's a well-known quote from George Orwell about restating the obvious,
and what's obvious is that sea level isn't going to suddenly begin to rise twice
as fast as it has over the last several centuries.
You know it, I know it, and Threegoofs knows it.
Maybe if you read the relevant section of the IPCC, you’ll get your answer. It’s painfully obvious that you either haven’t read it, or have not even a basic understanding of it.
The West Side Highway remains dry.
Also not in the IPCC.
But how would you know?
But it was Hansen's prediction.
No- it was an offhand comment in a radio interview from 20 years ago!
But I do understand that that’s pretty much all you’ve got.
Well, no. It was his reply to an interview question by an author, who included it in his book.
Bob Reiss, The Coming Storm, 2001, page 31. The interview took place in 1988.
Right. It was an offhand comment, like I said.
And stuff like that is about your strongest argument, which should tell you something if you were an honest man.