Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEPretty much as the temperature continues to rise in line with the model for the carbon emission prediction. If these are lower, it just means the affect they are having is a magnitude greater.
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is being a massive phaggot. This is a variation of "the global sea level only rises 1/8 of an inch a year," never mind that a global sea level rise of 10 inches would put the Gulf Coast underwater.
Oh really?
Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html
And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308
This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming.
Originally posted by dadudemonThose were extreme predictions which were revised. It was the hottest on record in Paris and London 2 weeks ago mate.
Oh really?Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html
And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308
This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?Since 1993, sea levels rose 3 inches. It was projected to rise 4 feet.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html
And the rise has been adjusted down again to just 3mm a year (very tiny above what projections would have been in 1900, exiting the ice age):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308
This does two things:
1. Global Warming alarmists are full of shit.
2. Evidence still points to man as having an impact on global warming.
Global warming alarmists are full of shit but we but can all agree freshwater is scarce.
So a way to kill two birds with one stone and satisfy everyone is a massive de sal effort powered with renewable energy.
Alarmists are just POS with no solutions.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Those were extreme predictions which were revised. It was the hottest on record in Paris and London 2 weeks ago mate.
Probably what should be stated is we should have hottest days on record because we are still exiting an ice-age.
But the clarification should be: that hottest day probably should not have been experienced until 10 years from now or 50 years from now as we slowly exit the ice age. What made that hottest day happen in 2019 is likely the man-made component of global warming.
These are very large timescales. So a difference of 10-50 years is negligible but because the changes are happening much faster, relative to our human perceptions, it is pressuring us to change too quickly and hurts us, economically.
Hope all that makes sense.
In the past, the alarmists would say, "Oh no! We are doing all the warming we would normally do in 10,000 years in only 200 years because of our green house gas emissions!!!!" In reality, it's closer to a difference of 9000 vs 10000. Or even just 9500 vs 10000.
That .01% contribution is cumulative and likely exponential on the change impact.
Yes, the alarmists are full of shit. But the deniers are full of shit, as well.
Edit - I should state that I tried to avoid some of the silly, older, predictions, which is why I went with stuff after 1990 and not some of the stupid stuff from earlier. You're right, though: they have greatly softened their predictions and that should be noted.
Originally posted by Surtur
So, did you not read the counter points people made to Adam's post?
Sea levels are rising and no amount of gaslighting will change that. Some people who live in coastal areas are experiencing it first hand and then there's the data which has been collected for years and years via satellites.
New study finds sea level rise accelerating
The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team. -snip