Climate-Debate.com Discuss climate change
no leveling off of warming
| 31-05-2017 18:57 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 31-05-2017 19:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
Please excuse me, I do not want to insult you but precisely what sort of credentials do you have to be able to judge anything?
The entire problem with the AGW crowd is that a tiny number of scientists who probably honestly believe what they have been putting out are supported by a very large number of politicians who are seeking more power via a world wide government with centralized power.
No amount of science that contradicts the original papers seems to have the slightest effect and the AGW's loudest spokesmen are those "environmentalists" that do not even understand the original papers properly.
No amount of science can contradict religion and that is what this has turned into.
Just this morning on TV we heard that the kelp forests along the northern California coast are dying because of global warming. Well the water temperatures are 5 degree cooler than normal and the kelp forests are "dying" because they are being eaten by a large bloom of spiny sea urchins.
Nothing on this planet isn't being blamed on "global warming" and this is the real bolox mate. |
| 31-05-2017 19:42 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
Please excuse me, I do not want to insult you but precisely what sort of credentials do you have to be able to judge anything?
The entire problem with the AGW crowd is that a tiny number of scientists who probably honestly believe what they have been putting out are supported by a very large number of politicians who are seeking more power via a world wide government with centralized power.
No amount of science that contradicts the original papers seems to have the slightest effect and the AGW's loudest spokesmen are those "environmentalists" that do not even understand the original papers properly.
No amount of science can contradict religion and that is what this has turned into.
Just this morning on TV we heard that the kelp forests along the northern California coast are dying because of global warming. Well the water temperatures are 5 degree cooler than normal and the kelp forests are "dying" because they are being eaten by a large bloom of spiny sea urchins.
Nothing on this planet isn't being blamed on "global warming" and this is the real bolox mate.
What credentials do I need? You claim to be an expert in how satellites measure sea levels but you claim that I posted a graph showing sea levels confined to the US east coast, but of course anyone with anywhere near the expertise that you claim to have would immediately recognize that the graph I posted showed worldwide sea levels. Hence I know that you are a fraud, you lie and continue to lie so what use is having a conversation with you? Expect to point that out to a third party who might be convinced by your pompous style of writing that you are some kind of expert.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 31-05-2017 20:43 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
Please excuse me, I do not want to insult you but precisely what sort of credentials do you have to be able to judge anything?
The entire problem with the AGW crowd is that a tiny number of scientists who probably honestly believe what they have been putting out are supported by a very large number of politicians who are seeking more power via a world wide government with centralized power.
No amount of science that contradicts the original papers seems to have the slightest effect and the AGW's loudest spokesmen are those "environmentalists" that do not even understand the original papers properly.
No amount of science can contradict religion and that is what this has turned into.
Just this morning on TV we heard that the kelp forests along the northern California coast are dying because of global warming. Well the water temperatures are 5 degree cooler than normal and the kelp forests are "dying" because they are being eaten by a large bloom of spiny sea urchins.
Nothing on this planet isn't being blamed on "global warming" and this is the real bolox mate.
What credentials do I need? You claim to be an expert in how satellites measure sea levels but you claim that I posted a graph showing sea levels confined to the US east coast, but of course anyone with anywhere near the expertise that you claim to have would immediately recognize that the graph I posted showed worldwide sea levels. Hence I know that you are a fraud, you lie and continue to lie so what use is having a conversation with you? Expect to point that out to a third party who might be convinced by your pompous style of writing that you are some kind of expert.
The graph you posted was manufactured data.
It is not possible to determine absolute sea level using satellites or any other method.
You have no useful reference.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 31-05-2017 20:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
Please excuse me, I do not want to insult you but precisely what sort of credentials do you have to be able to judge anything?
The entire problem with the AGW crowd is that a tiny number of scientists who probably honestly believe what they have been putting out are supported by a very large number of politicians who are seeking more power via a world wide government with centralized power.
No amount of science that contradicts the original papers seems to have the slightest effect and the AGW's loudest spokesmen are those "environmentalists" that do not even understand the original papers properly.
No amount of science can contradict religion and that is what this has turned into.
Just this morning on TV we heard that the kelp forests along the northern California coast are dying because of global warming. Well the water temperatures are 5 degree cooler than normal and the kelp forests are "dying" because they are being eaten by a large bloom of spiny sea urchins.
Nothing on this planet isn't being blamed on "global warming" and this is the real bolox mate.
What credentials do I need? You claim to be an expert in how satellites measure sea levels but you claim that I posted a graph showing sea levels confined to the US east coast, but of course anyone with anywhere near the expertise that you claim to have would immediately recognize that the graph I posted showed worldwide sea levels. Hence I know that you are a fraud, you lie and continue to lie so what use is having a conversation with you? Expect to point that out to a third party who might be convinced by your pompous style of writing that you are some kind of expert.
The fact is you posted a graph that showed nothing more than ground based measurements which were gathered mostly in the New England area. The very small section which was supposedly collected by satellite showed a rise in sea levels that haven't been measured in other areas. And as was shown - the sea levels have actually dropped in some places in the world.
Moreover the measurements in the Mediterranean sea make no sense whatsoever. Very careful measurements taken at Marseilles, France and Genova, Italy show some 100 mm growth over 100 years while neighboring Trieste claims 200 mm. Two places around Trieste claim 100 mm sea level growth in the last 10 years. And the sea levels in the Red Sea have changed more daily from evaporation than from measured sea level changes - and the Suez Canal doesn't measure any changes.
If I'm pompous it's because like all scientists I take the trouble to know something before claiming something is true. The sea levels rose during the little ice age which is completely against the ideas of global warming causing such growth. The sea levels also dropped in the Medieval Warm Period. So either the manner in which sea levels are measure is questionable or perhaps, just perhaps, this science has not yet been adequately understood.
So the question arises - if the specialists do not understand what is going on why do you select one of them that agrees with your position and present that as the unvarnished truth?
Edited on 31-05-2017 21:17 |
|
| 31-05-2017 21:57 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
What the hell are you talking about?
What figure do you use and why?
The figures are the ones that the IPCC use. |
| 31-05-2017 22:16 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, the IPCC's IR5 report says that the maximum level of warming by 2100 is 4.2c over their base line which is from about 1850.
We have had 0.8c rise since then.
The rest is obviously magic that you will fail to understand.
I do understand how you arrived at that figure it seems simplistic and slightly bonkers IMHO. What does it feel like to be a supergenius who is smarter then everyone qualified that has looked at this before?
What the hell are you talking about?
What figure do you use and why?
The figures are the ones that the IPCC use.
Tim, you haven't been attending the worship services. |
Join the debate no leveling off of warming:
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.