Remember me
▼ Content

They Finally Admitted It.


They Finally Admitted It.13-04-2018 01:12
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
They don't know what they are talking about. They finally realize that things are a lot worse than they appear. And it's about to get crazy, quickier than even Al Gore thought.

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-tipping-point-century-ahead-of-schedule-warns-scientist-06d633f968fc/

The ocean's conveyor belt is about to break down. When that happens, it cooks us for a while, then it sends us into a deep freeze. I'm thinking the deep freeze is a result of something else that is triggered, and not necessarily a direct result of the Gulf Stream taking a hike.

Of course, there will be naysayers in the crowd, who hate the likes of Michael Mann [who they think wants to destroy capitalism, lol] who will say anything to distract from the news. Just ignore them. They are just parrotting what their mentors say [which is total bull shit. They are stupider than the climate scientists].

Oh yeah, we have a member who bows to no one. Let's don't forget about him/her. Smile now, idjit.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-04-2018 03:40
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
From the article:
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation "would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise," as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.

So one would expect to see east coast tidal gauges showing acceleration. Here's the long-term measurements from New York:

There is no acceleration despite the dire predictions that have been going on for decades. How many wrong predictions need to happen before people stop believing them?
These folks are making predictions based on unvalidated extrapolations.
13-04-2018 12:21
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Jeffvw wrote:
From the article:
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation "would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise," as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.

So one would expect to see east coast tidal gauges showing acceleration. Here's the long-term measurements from New York:

There is no acceleration despite the dire predictions that have been going on for decades. How many wrong predictions need to happen before people stop believing them?
These folks are making predictions based on unvalidated extrapolations.


So we have yet another armchair scientist, who doesn't seem to understand charts. If you look at the beginning of your chart, you will see a very slight increase in sea level for the first few decades. After that, notice that the sea level begins to rise a little more every year. It's easier to see if you remove the heavy black trend line, which was put there to make the chart appear to be on a steady increase, or decrease, which is what trend lines show. Also, don't discount that your chart shows a .5 meter rise in the last 150 years. If you are around in 100 years, see how that compares.

You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-04-2018 14:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1082)
GreenMan wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
From the article:
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation "would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise," as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.

So one would expect to see east coast tidal gauges showing acceleration. Here's the long-term measurements from New York:

There is no acceleration despite the dire predictions that have been going on for decades. How many wrong predictions need to happen before people stop believing them?
These folks are making predictions based on unvalidated extrapolations.


So we have yet another armchair scientist, who doesn't seem to understand charts. If you look at the beginning of your chart, you will see a very slight increase in sea level for the first few decades. After that, notice that the sea level begins to rise a little more every year. It's easier to see if you remove the heavy black trend line, which was put there to make the chart appear to be on a steady increase, or decrease, which is what trend lines show. Also, don't discount that your chart shows a .5 meter rise in the last 150 years. If you are around in 100 years, see how that compares.


The chart shows a clearly not accelerating sea level change of not much to begin with.

You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.


You have no clue about this. The North Atlantic convayor is driven by the wind.

It has not had enough study for long enough to know if it is declining or increasing but it will always be driven by the wind. It will not be going away.
13-04-2018 15:26
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
GreenMan wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
From the article:
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation "would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise," as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.

So one would expect to see east coast tidal gauges showing acceleration. Here's the long-term measurements from New York:

There is no acceleration despite the dire predictions that have been going on for decades. How many wrong predictions need to happen before people stop believing them?
These folks are making predictions based on unvalidated extrapolations.


So we have yet another armchair scientist, who doesn't seem to understand charts. If you look at the beginning of your chart, you will see a very slight increase in sea level for the first few decades. After that, notice that the sea level begins to rise a little more every year. It's easier to see if you remove the heavy black trend line, which was put there to make the chart appear to be on a steady increase, or decrease, which is what trend lines show. Also, don't discount that your chart shows a .5 meter rise in the last 150 years. If you are around in 100 years, see how that compares.

You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

I understand charts. There is no acceleration for 150 years. Note that there are confidence intervals plotted on the chart; they are quite narrow. There are cycles within that time, but overall there is no trend. In fact, the last 10 years show a downward trend.

In order for New York to see 0.5 meter sea level rise by 2100, the trend would have to change from 2.84 mm/year to 6.1 mm/year immediately. I see no sign of the rate of sea level rise doubling anywhere in the world.

Here an example from the other side of the pond:

You should note that there in no acceleration also. You also see that there is a lower slope overall. In order for Aberdeen to see a 0.5 meter (500 mm) rise in sea level, the rate would immediately need to jump by 8.5 times. That would be impressive.

New York's land is sinking, which accounts for its higher rate. Aberdeen is far enough north that it is seeing the effects of isostatic rebound of the glaciers that used to cover the area. Go further north and the sea level rise is negative. Check any tidal gauge in the world and you will see no change in slope anywhere (except where an earthquake has occurred). Check for yourself at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html.

Sea level rise is not accelerating even though it has been predicted to do so by many climate prophets. How many failed prophecies does it take to question these so called 'experts'?
13-04-2018 15:39
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
GreenMan wrote:
You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

Now's a good time to look at history. We are in the middle of an ice age and are in what they call an interglacial period. This is a relatively short warm period between much longer cold periods. This current interglacial is much cooler than the last interglacial. The world survived just fine during that time. The extra warmth did not shut down the AMOCS conveyor at that time (at least that we know of), there were no mass extinctions, and life thrived. The extra CO2 has not managed to warm us as much as we should be warming compared to that time.

Warm periods have been traditionally called 'climate optimums' since life thrives under warm conditions. Why would anyone want a cooler world?

In theory, CO2 should only warm the nights and winters and have almost no impact on daytime highs. Why does a moderated climate scare people?
Edited on 13-04-2018 16:11
13-04-2018 17:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3260)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw

Greenman has made a model and that's what's important. I still haven't seen any credentials from him to suggest that he could make any sort of model that didn't contain balsa wood and glue.

My analysis of Dr. Spencer's temperature charts from the 39 year old weather satellites in fact show me that there has been a net reduction in temperature over that period.

But Greenman has a model that tells us all that we are going to have catastrophic warming.

The problems with models are so abundant that I suppose he must actually publish his model before talking about it.
13-04-2018 17:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5019)
Wake wrote:
Greenman has made a model and that's what's important. I still haven't seen any credentials from him to suggest that he could make any sort of model that didn't contain balsa wood and glue.

Science isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. Using the 'credentials' argument is a fallacy. It is a form of bulverism.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
My analysis of Dr. Spencer's temperature charts from the 39 year old weather satellites in fact show me that there has been a net reduction in temperature over that period.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. All they measure is light. May suggest you study up on the Stefan-Boltzmann law instead of just discarding or changing it again?
Wake wrote:
But Greenman has a model that tells us all that we are going to have catastrophic warming.

Yeah, will so does the rest of the Church of Global Warming. What's new?
Wake wrote:
The problems with models are so abundant that I suppose he must actually publish his model before talking about it.

Didn't you know? Religion needs no model!


The Parrot Killer
13-04-2018 17:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5019)
Jeffvw wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
From the article:
The impacts are serious. A slow-down in deepwater ocean circulation "would accelerate sea level rise off the northeastern United States, while a full collapse could result in as much as approximately 1.6 feet of regional sea level rise," as the authors of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) explained in November.

So one would expect to see east coast tidal gauges showing acceleration. Here's the long-term measurements from New York:

There is no acceleration despite the dire predictions that have been going on for decades. How many wrong predictions need to happen before people stop believing them?
These folks are making predictions based on unvalidated extrapolations.


So we have yet another armchair scientist, who doesn't seem to understand charts. If you look at the beginning of your chart, you will see a very slight increase in sea level for the first few decades. After that, notice that the sea level begins to rise a little more every year. It's easier to see if you remove the heavy black trend line, which was put there to make the chart appear to be on a steady increase, or decrease, which is what trend lines show. Also, don't discount that your chart shows a .5 meter rise in the last 150 years. If you are around in 100 years, see how that compares.

You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

I understand charts. There is no acceleration for 150 years. Note that there are confidence intervals plotted on the chart; they are quite narrow. There are cycles within that time, but overall there is no trend. In fact, the last 10 years show a downward trend.

In order for New York to see 0.5 meter sea level rise by 2100, the trend would have to change from 2.84 mm/year to 6.1 mm/year immediately. I see no sign of the rate of sea level rise doubling anywhere in the world.

Here an example from the other side of the pond:

You should note that there in no acceleration also. You also see that there is a lower slope overall. In order for Aberdeen to see a 0.5 meter (500 mm) rise in sea level, the rate would immediately need to jump by 8.5 times. That would be impressive.

New York's land is sinking, which accounts for its higher rate. Aberdeen is far enough north that it is seeing the effects of isostatic rebound of the glaciers that used to cover the area. Go further north and the sea level rise is negative. Check any tidal gauge in the world and you will see no change in slope anywhere (except where an earthquake has occurred). Check for yourself at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html.

Sea level rise is not accelerating even though it has been predicted to do so by many climate prophets. How many failed prophecies does it take to question these so called 'experts'?

You've got it right. It's why we really can't measure anything like a sea level rise or fall. There is no usable reference point. Land moves.

We can certainly see the daily tides, the effects of barometric pressure, etc. on individual stations, though.


The Parrot Killer
13-04-2018 17:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5019)
Jeffvw wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

Now's a good time to look at history. We are in the middle of an ice age and are in what they call an interglacial period. This is a relatively short warm period between much longer cold periods. This current interglacial is much cooler than the last interglacial. The world survived just fine during that time. The extra warmth did not shut down the AMOCS conveyor at that time (at least that we know of), there were no mass extinctions, and life thrived. The extra CO2 has not managed to warm us as much as we should be warming compared to that time.

Warm periods have been traditionally called 'climate optimums' since life thrives under warm conditions. Why would anyone want a cooler world?

In theory, CO2 should only warm the nights and winters and have almost no impact on daytime highs. Why does a moderated climate scare people?


Many good points. CO2, however, will warm no night or winter unless it is warmer than the surface.


The Parrot Killer
14-04-2018 00:28
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Jeffvw wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

Now's a good time to look at history. We are in the middle of an ice age and are in what they call an interglacial period. This is a relatively short warm period between much longer cold periods. This current interglacial is much cooler than the last interglacial. The world survived just fine during that time. The extra warmth did not shut down the AMOCS conveyor at that time (at least that we know of), there were no mass extinctions, and life thrived. The extra CO2 has not managed to warm us as much as we should be warming compared to that time.

Warm periods have been traditionally called 'climate optimums' since life thrives under warm conditions. Why would anyone want a cooler world?

In theory, CO2 should only warm the nights and winters and have almost no impact on daytime highs. Why does a moderated climate scare people?


For starters, we have no idea if the AMOCS conveyor shut down during the last interglacial peak. But we do know for certain that there was a sudden decrease in the CO2 concentrations just ahead of the last interglacial peak, and a sudden increase of CH4 just ahead of the peak. One of those two things point to massive amounts of animals dying.

And, though it get get a few degrees warmer then, than it is now, it didn't stay that way long at all. The average temperature shot up like a bat out of hell, all the way from ass kicking cold glacial, almost straight up. CO2 was increasing the entire time, because animals were thriving in the increasingly warmer climate. Everything was great, until the peak got there. Something happened to cause most of the animals to disappear. Because that is what happened before the temperature started dropping.

While I agree that a slightly warmer would wouldn't be a bad thing, I can't agree that it means that we shouldn't concern ourselves about global warming. The problem is that it's not like we have control of the thermostat, and can turn off the additional heat when we start getting uncomfortable. Nope. It just keeps on getting hotter and hotter. We eventually all die, if nothing changes, to cool things off. I know that for sure, because I worked out the energy budget of our planet. It's a simple algorithm that anyone can apply, and see for themselves if there is any danger in allowing our CO2 levels to go unchecked. In fact, we already have enough greenhouse gases in the air to drive our average global temperature up way beyond our tolerance levels. And it's going to happen, even if some arm chair scientists don't agree.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-04-2018 01:42
Wake
★★★★★
(3260)
Greenman - we do know that photosynthesis stops at 180 ppm. So during cold periods with most of the moisture tied up in ice plants will literally eat themselves out of house and home.

I have shown several places that a NORMAL average atmospheric CO2 is between 320 and 350 ppm. I am not going to go through this again so you can take my word for it or go to your Skeptical Science and their scientific crew of journalists with vast climate training.
14-04-2018 05:29
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
GreenMan wrote:
For starters, we have no idea if the AMOCS conveyor shut down during the last interglacial peak. But we do know for certain that there was a sudden decrease in the CO2 concentrations just ahead of the last interglacial peak, and a sudden increase of CH4 just ahead of the peak. One of those two things point to massive amounts of animals dying.

I always understood that the CO2 concentrations have lagged temperatures in the ice core data, and the CH4 levels tracked temperature real time. I'm not aware of any extinction events during the Eemian period.

GreenMan wrote:And, though it get get a few degrees warmer then, than it is now, it didn't stay that way long at all. The average temperature shot up like a bat out of hell, all the way from ass kicking cold glacial, almost straight up. CO2 was increasing the entire time, because animals were thriving in the increasingly warmer climate. Everything was great, until the peak got there. Something happened to cause most of the animals to disappear. Because that is what happened before the temperature started dropping.

The rapid events you talk about occurred over millennia. They are rapid over a geological time scale, but are very long from a human timescale. Temperatures were much hotter during the Eemian for 6000-8000 years. Earth survived. So did a good chunk of the Greenland Ice Sheet. See: Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core
Again, I'm not aware of a mass extinction during that time. A reference would be appreciated.

GreenMan wrote:While I agree that a slightly warmer would wouldn't be a bad thing, I can't agree that it means that we shouldn't concern ourselves about global warming. The problem is that it's not like we have control of the thermostat, and can turn off the additional heat when we start getting uncomfortable. Nope. It just keeps on getting hotter and hotter. We eventually all die, if nothing changes, to cool things off. I know that for sure, because I worked out the energy budget of our planet. It's a simple algorithm that anyone can apply, and see for themselves if there is any danger in allowing our CO2 levels to go unchecked. In fact, we already have enough greenhouse gases in the air to drive our average global temperature up way beyond our tolerance levels. And it's going to happen, even if some arm chair scientists don't agree.

I would be curious to see your energy budget. Remember that CO2 has a logarithmic impact on temperature. That means that every bit you add contributes less and less to global warming. You also need to know that energy emitted to space is proportional to T^4. A little bit of increase in temperature leads to a massive increase in radiation lost to space.

Greenhouse gas theory says that most warming will be at night and during winters. High temperatures should be impacted very little, since most radiation is lost to space from earth during hot times. Hence CO2 should moderate temperatures.
15-04-2018 10:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1082)
GreenMan wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You didn't get much out of the story, if all you got was that the sea level will rise. That's minuscule compared to what the regional and even global climate changes do to us. We will begin to bake from the heat of the ocean, if the AMOCS conveyor shuts down. We will go from everything's fine, like now, to panic overnight. And there will be no turning back.

Now's a good time to look at history. We are in the middle of an ice age and are in what they call an interglacial period. This is a relatively short warm period between much longer cold periods. This current interglacial is much cooler than the last interglacial. The world survived just fine during that time. The extra warmth did not shut down the AMOCS conveyor at that time (at least that we know of), there were no mass extinctions, and life thrived. The extra CO2 has not managed to warm us as much as we should be warming compared to that time.

Warm periods have been traditionally called 'climate optimums' since life thrives under warm conditions. Why would anyone want a cooler world?

In theory, CO2 should only warm the nights and winters and have almost no impact on daytime highs. Why does a moderated climate scare people?


For starters, we have no idea if the AMOCS conveyor shut down during the last interglacial peak. But we do know for certain that there was a sudden decrease in the CO2 concentrations just ahead of the last interglacial peak, and a sudden increase of CH4 just ahead of the peak. One of those two things point to massive amounts of animals dying.

And, though it get get a few degrees warmer then, than it is now, it didn't stay that way long at all. The average temperature shot up like a bat out of hell, all the way from ass kicking cold glacial, almost straight up. CO2 was increasing the entire time, because animals were thriving in the increasingly warmer climate. Everything was great, until the peak got there. Something happened to cause most of the animals to disappear. Because that is what happened before the temperature started dropping.

While I agree that a slightly warmer would wouldn't be a bad thing, I can't agree that it means that we shouldn't concern ourselves about global warming. The problem is that it's not like we have control of the thermostat, and can turn off the additional heat when we start getting uncomfortable. Nope. It just keeps on getting hotter and hotter. We eventually all die, if nothing changes, to cool things off. I know that for sure, because I worked out the energy budget of our planet. It's a simple algorithm that anyone can apply, and see for themselves if there is any danger in allowing our CO2 levels to go unchecked. In fact, we already have enough greenhouse gases in the air to drive our average global temperature up way beyond our tolerance levels. And it's going to happen, even if some arm chair scientists don't agree.


1, The release or absorpsion of CO2 from the oceans is what determins the medium time level of CO2 not animals dying.

2, Given that no science supports your idea of heating beyond human tollerance you aretalking out of your arse there.
15-04-2018 23:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3260)
Tim the plumber wrote:
1, The release or absorption of CO2 from the oceans is what determines the medium time level of CO2 not animals dying.

2, Given that no science supports your idea of heating beyond human tolerance you are talking out of your arse there.


Lately I've been reading so many papers that I can't put my finger to this one but it was a satellite reconnaissance of CO2 from satellite. It showed that the most CO2 was NOT coming from urban areas but instead from the Amazon Rain Forest and the south central African forests. That struck me as odd since you would expect those areas to consume CO2 but apparently the rotting plant and animal matter is the largest producer of CO2.




Join the debate They Finally Admitted It.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Finally doing something - Concentrated Solar Power Plants313-04-2018 17:54
Gore finally got his white whale after 11yrs.107-10-2016 12:23
Nasa and Ipcc admitted to manipulating global temperature data019-08-2014 03:39
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact