Climate Change: .01% is 'Man-made' According to Results Duplicated Study

Originally posted by Robtard
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

Right but let me just cut to the chase: do you accept that this study has shown man made climate change is not nearly as bad as has been claimed? Just looking for a yes or no here.

So you now accept scientific research, cos before you didn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you now accept scientific research, cos before you didn't.

Your dodge is acknowledged, now perhaps answer my question.

Originally posted by Robtard
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

Not to mention the Army Corps. of Engineers and the Department of Defense which have been issuing warnings about climate change for years.

So it's a simple yes or no: do you accept the findings of what DDM posted?

Originally posted by Surtur
So it's a simple yes or no: do you accept the findings of what DDM posted?

Why do you not believe our own military?

So yeah, you both accept the findings, but can't actually come out and say it. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not to mention the Army Corps. of Engineers and the Department of Defense which have been issuing warnings about climate change for years.

What do those cucks know.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why do you not believe our own military?

And NASA, we can apparently trust them to build a Space Force and send people to and back from Mars, but what they say about climate change and sea levels based on years of satellite data, meh.

So why can't you answer my question?

It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It indicates the emission may be less than first thought, this has nothing to do with modern warming estimates. It just indicates perhaps less greenhouse gases are needed to produce the modern trends being experienced. It would also be foolish to throw away past meta data based on hundreds of studies due to two. I don't even know who funded these. Much more research is needed. What we do know is temperatures and water levels are going up, Ice caps are melting and these correlate to increased Greenhouse gases.

It indicates people misrepresented shit.

Aren't those people weasels?

That's how science works, you collect data; you test it, test it some more and you go with it, if new data changes the model, so be it. They're only dishonest if they knowingly misrepresented the data.

Human pollution isn't something invented either, we can see its effects in areas that suffer the worst from polluted water and air. eg Beijing China. Even if this study is correct, we still need to do something about the ever increasing pollution.

Do you accept the study DDM has put forth? This is a yes or no.

Its okay to say no bro.

I accept that the previous models may very well be wrong and are likely wrong considering how many factors are at play. But .01% seems very low considering how much pollution humanity creates, but I also don't know that even if that is correct and .01% is fact, is that seemingly small amount still enough to tip the scales to the point we f**k ourselves up the ass sans lube.

People need to keep researching and we absolutely need to reign in the vast polluters and we need to keep pushing for sensible** cleaner outlets and regulation.

**Trump scaling back the MPG standards for automobiles was a stupid move on several fronts. Dirty cars are not good, giving less incentives for alternative/cleaner drive sources is not good.

Do you accept it?

I can accept we have work to do, but also that we need to dial the the f*cking hysteria folks have over climate change. Agreed?

I'm asked if your accept the ".01%" as fact. Do you?

I'll be honest, it's hard to know what to accept as fact when people misrepresent climate shit.

I honestly don't know, but I do know people who have invoked "muh science!" when screaming about climate change can't ignore this, and are petty unintelligent fools if they do. Hope that helps.

If by "work" you mean that many of us have to give up things like air conditioning then I say f*** that shit. I live in the deep south where it gets hot and humid as f*** especially in the summer months. So, no, I'm not about to give up my air conditioning over all of this climate hysteria BS. Nor am I giving up hamburgers either so AOC can kiss my white a**.

Until these Hollywood hypocrite snobs start following their own advice and quit flying all around the country and the world on their private jets they can all kiss my a**.

"Her derp hottest summer on record! That proves we were right her derp!" No matter what the weather does or doesn't do climate alarmists will claim it is "proof" of "man-made" climate change horseshit. Weather has wildly fluctuated since God created the world. He designed a world in which the weather was constantly changing. Having the "hottest" day or summer on record doesn't prove a damn thing. Nor does the sea level being higher than it used to be. That's normal.

I remember when Al Gore said a while back that the world would end in 2016 because of climate change. Yet, we're still here. Of course climate alarmists have totally ignored him being wrong about that.

"Oh, but this time, we're right!!"... lol. Sure you are. 😉

Despite what climate alarmists think, "climate change/global warming" is not the biggest threat to mankind. Nuclear weapons are.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll be honest, it's hard to know what to accept as fact when people misrepresent climate shit.

I honestly don't know, but I do know people who have invoked "muh science!" when screaming about climate change can't ignore this, and are petty unintelligent fools if they do. Hope that helps.

But I can't ignore the negative visible signs that pollution causes; these are intertwined to me, we keep tackling pollution, we will help the environment and if that has the positive effect of scaling back negative changes in our climate, perfect. If not, we clean up and we still end up with cleaner air, water and food. I don't want to live like people do in Beijing China or Los Angeles before regulations cleaned it up.