Jump to content

Oh AGWalarmists ... Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone


Recommended Posts

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/12/deep-solar-minimum-on-the-verge-of-an-historic-milestone/

 

Quote

 

Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone


by Paul Dorian


clip_image002-5.jpg?resize=628,312&ssl=1
Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance. Data source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. Last day shown: 31 October 2019. Last diagram update: 1 November 2019. [Courtesy climate4you.com]


The sun is currently in the midst of a deep solar minimum and it is about to reach an historic milestone. So far this year the sun has been blank (i.e., no visible sunspots) for 266 days and, barring any major surprises, it’ll reach 269 days early next week which will be the quietest year in terms of sunspots since 1913 when the sun was spotless for 311 days. In fact, the current stretch of consecutive spotless days has reached 29 and for the year the sun has been blank 77% of the time. The current record-holder in the satellite era for spotless days in a given year is 2008 when the sun was blank for 268 days making the 2008-2009 solar minimum the deepest since 1913.


Solar minimum is a normal part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the last one and the current one have been far deeper than most. One of the consequences of a solar minimum is a reduction of solar storms and another is the intensification of cosmic rays. The just ended solar cycle 24 turned out to be one of the weakest in more than a century – continuing a weakening trend that began in the 1980’s – and, if the latest forecasts are correct, the next solar cycle will be the weakest in more than 200 years.


clip_image004-4.jpg?resize=628,628&ssl=1
The sun remains spotless today and has been so 77% of the time in 2019; image courtesy NASA SDO/HMI, spaceweather.com


Solar minimum and the intensification of cosmic rays


One of the natural impacts of decreasing solar activity is the weakening of the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field which, in turn, allows more and more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from outside the solar system that can impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Our first line of defense from cosmic rays comes from the sun as its magnetic field and the solar wind combine to create a ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during solar maximum and weakest during solar minimum with the weakening magnetic field and solar wind.  The intensity of cosmic rays varies globally by about 15% over a solar cycle because of changes in the strength of the solar wind, which carries a weak magnetic field into the heliosphere, partially shielding Earth from low-energy galactic charged particles.


clip_image006-4.jpg?resize=628,364&ssl=1
Cosmic rays have been intensifying for more than 4 years. On Dec. 5th and 6th they surged within a percentage point of the Space Age record, according to data from neutron counters at the University of Oulu’s Cosmic Ray Station in Finland. Courtesy spaceweather.com.


High-altitude balloons have been launched on a periodic basis in recent years to monitor stratospheric radiation associated with the influx of cosmic rays and they have shown a steady increase since 2015 (campaign sponsored by spaceweather.com). In this set of measurements, cosmic rays have increased by about 13% during the past four years over the central part of California. At another location, the neutron monitor at the University of Oulu’s cosmic ray station in Finland recorded levels earlier this month that were within a percentage point of the satellite era record.


clip_image008-3.jpg?resize=628,369&ssl=1
Cosmic rays in the stratosphere are intensifying for the 4th year in a row. This finding comes from a campaign of almost weekly high-altitude balloon launches conducted by the students of Earth to Sky Calculus. Since March 2015, there has been a ~13% increase in X-rays and gamma-rays over central California, where the students have launched hundreds of balloons. The grey points in the graph are Earth to Sky balloon data. Overlaid on that time series is a record of neutron monitor data from the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Oulu, Finland. The correlation between the two data sets is impressive, especially considering their wide geographic separation and differing methodologies. Neutron monitors have long been considered a “gold standard” for monitoring cosmic rays on Earth. This shows that our student-built balloons are gathering data of similar quality.

 

Cosmic rays are of interest to anyone who flies on airplanes. According to spaceweather.com, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has classified pilots as occupational radiation workers because of cosmic ray doses they receive while flying. A recent study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that flight attendants face an elevated risk of cancer compared to members of the general population. They listed cosmic rays as one of several risk factors. There are also some studies that suggest cosmic rays promote the formation of clouds in the atmosphere; if so, increasing cosmic rays could affect weather and climate.


clip_image010-2.png?resize=628,264&ssl=1
400 years of sunspot observations; courtesy Wikipedia


Solar cycle 25


The solar cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth between periods of high and low sunspot number every 11 years or so. Researchers have been tracking solar cycles since they were discovered in the 19th century. The just ended solar cycle, #24, was the weakest with the fewest sunspots since solar cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continued a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 21 that peaked around 1980. The very latest forecast for the next solar cycle (#25) says it will be weaker than the just ended SC24 and perhaps the weakest of the last 200 years. To be fair, some earlier forecasts had the next solar cycle being in similar magnitude to SC24.  However, research now underway has apparently found a more reliable method to predict space weather. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot numbers, could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one – solar cycle 24 according to the latest forecast. The results of this new forecasting technique show that the next solar cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.


The new forecast is the work of a team led by Irina Kitiashvili of the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, California. Using data collected since 1976 from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and the Solar Dynamics Observatory space missions, the researchers were able to come up with a prediction by directly observing the solar magnetic field rather than simply counting sunspots, which provides only a rough gauge of activity inside the Sun. Because this is a relatively new approach, there is only data from four complete cycles, but by combining three sources of solar observations with estimates of the Sun’s interior activity, the team was able to produce a prediction in 2008 that matched the activity that was observed over the past 11 years.


One challenge for researchers working to predict the Sun’s activities is that scientists do not yet completely understand the inner workings of our star. Some factors that play out deep inside the Sun cannot be measured directly. They have to be estimated from measurements of related phenomena on the solar surface like sunspots, coronal holes and filaments. Kitiashvili’s method differs from other prediction tools in terms of the raw material for its forecast. Previously, researchers used the number of sunspots to represent indirectly the activity of the solar magnetic field. The new approach takes advantage of direct observations of magnetic fields emerging on the surface of the Sun.


clip_image011.png?resize=660,479&ssl=1

Temperature recordings at the Greenland Ranch weather station in Death Valley, California during the intense heat wave of July 1913. This excerpt about the record-breaking heat wave comes from an article posted during January 1922 in the meteorological journal Monthly Weather Review which is still in publication today. Courtesy NOAA


Extreme weather of 1913


One final note of interest, the year 1913 cited earlier for its lack of sunspots on the order of 311 days was a year filled with wild weather extremes including the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Death Valley, CA. For more on the extreme weather of 1913 click here ( https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/2019/7/10/1230-pm-hottest-temperature-ever-recorded-on-earth-took-place-on-july-10th-1913-in-death-valley-california-a-year-with-many-amazing-weather-events ).

 

 

Hey folks ... maybe Greta's wrong? 

 

Maybe ...

 

Its_The_Sun_Stupid.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another bogus denier cult pseudo-science thread, full of nonsense and lies. As usual from the fossil fuel industry stooge and troll, BeACretin. The Earth is unequivocally heating up, and no supposed cyclic solar minimums are going to change that because they have nothing to do with the basic cause of the current accelerating global warming. It is a completely confirmed scientific fact that the over 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that mankind's activities have produced is what is driving the global warming.

 

Greta is right and the reality deniers are insane! And that is the reality of our situation.

 

Even Greta Isn’t Radical Enough

Rolling Stone
Jeff Goodell
December 11, 2019

 

A few years ago, when I told strangers that I wrote about the climate crisis, they often looked at me as if I’d just told them I wrote about the mating habits of porcupines. Interesting in a freakish sorta way, maybe, but far from urgent.

 

That’s changed. Now, even in places like Texas, where I’ve been spending a lot of time recently, everyone wants to talk about the Green New Deal or the best places to live in the future or whether electric cars really emit less carbon (yes, but what the world really needs is way fewer cars and way more mass transit. Are you listening, Austin?).

 

And now 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg is Time’s Person of the Year, an honor she totally deserves, and one that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. As Greta herself points out, she is just one of thousands of climate activists rising up in what is by far the most hopeful sign that humans are waking up to the climate emergency. There are lots of other signs of cultural change, too: bankers warning about the risk of financial collapse in the climate crisis, great climate scientists like Andrea Dutton winning MacArthur “genius” awards, Oxford dictionaries naming “climate emergency” as its 2019 Word of the Year. Although the number of voters who think global warming should be a “very high priority” for the president and Congress has stayed flat among Republicans over the past decade, it has roughly doubled among Democrats. In California, climate change is the number one priorityof voters in the 2020 presidential campaign.

 

With all this, it’s easy to feel optimistic that we are nearing some kind of a cultural tipping point, and that maybe the only thing keeping the world from taking dramatic action is our mad-king climate-denying president.

 

But then you look at the heat and fire and toxic smoke that is choking Australia right now, or you see that global greenhouse gas pollution will hit another record high this year (“we’re blowing through our carbon budget the way an addict blows through cash,” one climate scientist said), and you realize how far the 7 billion citizens of planet Earth are from grasping the scale of transformation that is necessary to confront the crisis.

 

The critical issue, as writer Alex Steffen succinctly put it, is this: “When it comes to climate, speed is everything.” The longer we wait to cut emissions and adapt to our rapidly changing world, the more difficult those changes will be, the more they will cost, and the more people will suffer and die. It is as simple as that.

 

Two reports this week really capture the disconnect between the speed and scale of the changes in the natural world and the speed and scale at which humans are addressing the problem.

 

The first is what’s happening in the Arctic, where the climate is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average. This week, NOAA, the top U.S. climate science agency, released its annual Arctic Report Card. The results were grim: dead seals, declining fisheries, an algae bloom the size of California, and hardship for the indigenous communities who depend on a healthy eco-system for survival.

 

The meltdown of the Arctic is not news to anyone familiar with the climate crisis (I wrote about it last year, as well as in 2016). But two things in this report are worth highlighting.

 

The first is that the Arctic may have crossed an important climate threshold, causing the region’s vast expanses of permafrost (basically, frozen ground) to begin to thaw, releasing organic carbon that has until now been locked up in the soil. The report concludes that the melting permafrost is now releasing between 1.1 and 1.2 billion tons of CO2 each year, which is roughly the combined annual emissions of Russia and Japan. And if the warming continues, that could accelerate, with catastrophic consequences (hello “permafrost bomb”). Scientists estimate that approximately 1,460 billion to 1,600 billion metric tons of organic carbon is stored in frozen Arctic soils, almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as are contained in the atmosphere.

 

The second bit of alarming news from the Arctic is that scientists have collected strong evidence from satellite data that the Greenland ice sheet is melting seven times faster than it did in the 1990s. The amount of ice lost nearly doubled each decade, from 33 billion tons per year in the 1990s to an average now of 254 billion tons annually. Since 1992, nearly 4 trillion tons of Greenland ice have flowed into the ocean, equivalent to roughly a centimeter of global sea-level rise.

 

A centimeter of sea-level rise may not sound like much. But as Erich Osterberg, a climatologist at Dartmouth University, told PBS, one way to visualize the scale of the changes that are underway in the Arctic is to think of a herd of elephants charging off a cliff in Greenland into the ocean. “If you imagine that, we’re talking about 2,000 elephants charging into the ocean every second. That’s how much mass is going from Greenland into the ocean.”

 

For people who live on the coast, even one centimeter of sea-level rise is consequential. “Around the planet, one centimeter of higher water brings another 6 million people into seasonal, annual floods,” Andrew Shepherd, a University of Leeds professor and lead author on the study, tells me. But the real risk is from exponential acceleration of the rate: “If the rate of sea-level rise increases seven-fold in a generation, that means that in just two generations, you could have an acceleration that is nearly 50 times faster.”

 

In Shepherd’s view, the new satellite data from Greenland means that sea-level rise estimates in climate models need to be revised upwards, especially the high-end scenarios. It means that instead of three or four feet of rise by the end of the century, the climate models that suggest we might get six, seven, or eight feet may be a little more plausible. And it makes comments by Richard Alley, who said last year that it’s impossible to rule out 15 to 20 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century, a little easier to bend your mind around.

 

It also makes the long-term survival of many coastal cities, from Mumbai to Miami, a lot more complicated, expensive, and unlikely.

 

For cities, the cost of adapting to rising seas will be staggering. One study by the Center for Climate Integrity concluded that by 2040, building sea walls for storm surge protection for U.S. coastal cities will cost $400 billion. As a recent piece in Yale Environment 360 points out, that’s nearly the price of building the 47,000 miles of the interstate highway system, which took four decades and cost more than $500 billion in today’s dollars.

 

Where is that money going to come from? State and local taxes? The federal government? A benevolent god of climate adaptation? The politics of all this gets very complicated very quickly. Which neighborhoods get protected first?

 

New Orleans is a city that is particularly vulnerable to even small changes in sea level rise. After Hurricane Katrina hit the city in 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers spent about $14.6 billion on upgrades for hurricane defenses in the area. In the past 10 years, the Corps has built the largest surge barrier of its kind and the largest drainage-pump station in the world. It also strengthened levees, flood walls, gated structures and pump stations that form the 133-mile Greater New Orleans perimeter system.

 

Unfortunately, the Army Corps underestimated how rapidly things are changing. In the nearly 15 years since Katrina hit, the land around New Orleans has subsided and the seas have risen more quickly than engineers anticipated when they planned the system. As a result, the just-completed flood-protection system is already inadequate.

 

This week, the Army Corps released a report recommending a $3.2 billion, 50-year plan to upgrade and elevate the system. The upgrade, the report argued, was necessary to keep to the standard of protecting the city from a 100-year-flood (a flood that has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year).

 

Without the upgrade, the report said, homes behind the levees might now be ineligible for flood insurance. Without flood insurance, as everyone knows, the real estate values would collapse – and the city would begin a fast slide to oblivion. So to avert financial disaster, the city is forced to build ever higher, ever more expensive walls and barriers until either the money dries up or the engineering challenges become insurmountable.

 

The report pointed out that while the improvements would also result in a significant safety increase for residents, storms larger than the 100-year event would still pose a high risk to life “due to the extensive population protected by the levee system, even with good evacuation procedures.”

 

In other words, even after spending a total of $18 billion to protect the city, a big storm could bring another catastrophe. Every inch the seas rise, the risk rises with it. And the higher that wall, the greater the catastrophe when it fails.

 

I love New Orleans so it’s hard to say this, but in a rapidly warming world, it’s tough to see how it survives without a radical re-thinking of what it means to be a city on the coast. The same is true of course for any other city at extreme risk of rising waters, drought, and extreme heat. It’s not just a question of money and engineering skill. 

 

It’s a question of coming to grips with the scale of the crisis that confronts us, and with the profound injustices of who will be saved and who is doomed. In this sense, Greta’s anointment as the climate hero of our time is a sign of hope, but it is also a sign of how far we have to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

no supposed cyclic solar minimums are going to change that because they have nothing to do with the basic cause of the current accelerating global warming. It is a completely confirmed scientific fact that the over 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that mankind's activities have produced is what is driving the global warming.

 

LIAR.    

 

I've debunked this statement at least a couple dozen times on this forum and your only response has been to alter my posts AND RUN.

 

You're a JOKE, pogorocks.

 

You're such a liar that you even lied about the elevation above sea level of Obama's Martha's Vineyard house.

 

There is NO fact that is sacred to you.

 

You're a hard core socialist/communist dishonestly using AGWalarmism to promote your agenda.

 

To which I respond

 

https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

Another bogus denier cult pseudo-science thread, full of nonsense and lies. As usual from the fossil fuel industry stooge and troll, BeACretin. The Earth is unequivocally heating up, and no supposed cyclic solar minimums are going to change that because they have nothing to do with the basic cause of the current accelerating global warming. It is a completely confirmed scientific fact that the over 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that mankind's activities have produced is what is driving the global warming.

 

4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

LIAR.    

 

Yup! You sure are!

 

 

 

5 hours ago, ConConfounder said:
4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

I've debunked this statement at least a couple dozen times on this forum....

 

Nope! That's another one of your pathetc lies, BeACretin. You parrot fossil fuel industry propaganda and pseudo-science that wouldn't fool a sharp, scientifically literate 12 year old.

 

In the real world.....

Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer

U.S. scientists say the evidence linking rising levels of greenhouse gases and global warming is as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer

Scientific American

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, ConConfounder said:
4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

I'm a JOKE!

 

Well, you got that right, at least.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, ConConfounder said:
4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

You're a hard core socialist/communist dishonestly using AGWalarmism to promote your agenda.

To which I respond

https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

 

 

LOLOLOLOLOL......you pathetic troll!

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Background

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change. The group was established on November 22, 2009, just three days after the first set of “Climategate” emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. [1][2]

 

Nigel Lawson described the GWPF as an “all-party and non-party think-tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.” Although Lawson claims to be “open minded” on global warming, the GWPF website has a banner depicting a short-term temperature graph that suggests the world is not warming. [3]

 

In an interview with The RegisterNigel Lawson said that the Global Warming Policy Foundation “will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where there are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that.” The article also notes that the average age of the Trustees at the time of the group's formation was 74. [4]

 

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics said that “Some of those names [on the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council] are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics … To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny,”reports The Guardian[5]

*****

 

Neil Record and Nigel Vinson confirm their donations, and are both linked to thinktank that took funds from oil companies

 

The Guardian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

Another bogus denier cult pseudo-science thread, full of nonsense and lies. As usual from the fossil fuel industry stooge and troll, BeACretin. The Earth is unequivocally heating up, and no supposed cyclic solar minimums are going to change that because they have nothing to do with the basic cause of the current accelerating global warming. It is a completely confirmed scientific fact that the over 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that mankind's activities have produced is what is driving the global warming.

 

Greta is right and the reality deniers are insane! And that is the reality of our situation.

 

Even Greta Isn’t Radical Enough

Rolling Stone
Jeff Goodell
December 11, 2019

 

A few years ago, when I told strangers that I wrote about the climate crisis, they often looked at me as if I’d just told them I wrote about the mating habits of porcupines. Interesting in a freakish sorta way, maybe, but far from urgent.

 

That’s changed. Now, even in places like Texas, where I’ve been spending a lot of time recently, everyone wants to talk about the Green New Deal or the best places to live in the future or whether electric cars really emit less carbon (yes, but what the world really needs is way fewer cars and way more mass transit. Are you listening, Austin?).

 

And now 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg is Time’s Person of the Year, an honor she totally deserves, and one that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. As Greta herself points out, she is just one of thousands of climate activists rising up in what is by far the most hopeful sign that humans are waking up to the climate emergency. There are lots of other signs of cultural change, too: bankers warning about the risk of financial collapse in the climate crisis, great climate scientists like Andrea Dutton winning MacArthur “genius” awards, Oxford dictionaries naming “climate emergency” as its 2019 Word of the Year. Although the number of voters who think global warming should be a “very high priority” for the president and Congress has stayed flat among Republicans over the past decade, it has roughly doubled among Democrats. In California, climate change is the number one priorityof voters in the 2020 presidential campaign.

 

With all this, it’s easy to feel optimistic that we are nearing some kind of a cultural tipping point, and that maybe the only thing keeping the world from taking dramatic action is our mad-king climate-denying president.

 

But then you look at the heat and fire and toxic smoke that is choking Australia right now, or you see that global greenhouse gas pollution will hit another record high this year (“we’re blowing through our carbon budget the way an addict blows through cash,” one climate scientist said), and you realize how far the 7 billion citizens of planet Earth are from grasping the scale of transformation that is necessary to confront the crisis.

 

The critical issue, as writer Alex Steffen succinctly put it, is this: “When it comes to climate, speed is everything.” The longer we wait to cut emissions and adapt to our rapidly changing world, the more difficult those changes will be, the more they will cost, and the more people will suffer and die. It is as simple as that.

 

Two reports this week really capture the disconnect between the speed and scale of the changes in the natural world and the speed and scale at which humans are addressing the problem.

 

The first is what’s happening in the Arctic, where the climate is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average. This week, NOAA, the top U.S. climate science agency, released its annual Arctic Report Card. The results were grim: dead seals, declining fisheries, an algae bloom the size of California, and hardship for the indigenous communities who depend on a healthy eco-system for survival.

 

The meltdown of the Arctic is not news to anyone familiar with the climate crisis (I wrote about it last year, as well as in 2016). But two things in this report are worth highlighting.

 

The first is that the Arctic may have crossed an important climate threshold, causing the region’s vast expanses of permafrost (basically, frozen ground) to begin to thaw, releasing organic carbon that has until now been locked up in the soil. The report concludes that the melting permafrost is now releasing between 1.1 and 1.2 billion tons of CO2 each year, which is roughly the combined annual emissions of Russia and Japan. And if the warming continues, that could accelerate, with catastrophic consequences (hello “permafrost bomb”). Scientists estimate that approximately 1,460 billion to 1,600 billion metric tons of organic carbon is stored in frozen Arctic soils, almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as are contained in the atmosphere.

 

The second bit of alarming news from the Arctic is that scientists have collected strong evidence from satellite data that the Greenland ice sheet is melting seven times faster than it did in the 1990s. The amount of ice lost nearly doubled each decade, from 33 billion tons per year in the 1990s to an average now of 254 billion tons annually. Since 1992, nearly 4 trillion tons of Greenland ice have flowed into the ocean, equivalent to roughly a centimeter of global sea-level rise.

 

A centimeter of sea-level rise may not sound like much. But as Erich Osterberg, a climatologist at Dartmouth University, told PBS, one way to visualize the scale of the changes that are underway in the Arctic is to think of a herd of elephants charging off a cliff in Greenland into the ocean. “If you imagine that, we’re talking about 2,000 elephants charging into the ocean every second. That’s how much mass is going from Greenland into the ocean.”

 

For people who live on the coast, even one centimeter of sea-level rise is consequential. “Around the planet, one centimeter of higher water brings another 6 million people into seasonal, annual floods,” Andrew Shepherd, a University of Leeds professor and lead author on the study, tells me. But the real risk is from exponential acceleration of the rate: “If the rate of sea-level rise increases seven-fold in a generation, that means that in just two generations, you could have an acceleration that is nearly 50 times faster.”

 

In Shepherd’s view, the new satellite data from Greenland means that sea-level rise estimates in climate models need to be revised upwards, especially the high-end scenarios. It means that instead of three or four feet of rise by the end of the century, the climate models that suggest we might get six, seven, or eight feet may be a little more plausible. And it makes comments by Richard Alley, who said last year that it’s impossible to rule out 15 to 20 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century, a little easier to bend your mind around.

 

It also makes the long-term survival of many coastal cities, from Mumbai to Miami, a lot more complicated, expensive, and unlikely.

 

For cities, the cost of adapting to rising seas will be staggering. One study by the Center for Climate Integrity concluded that by 2040, building sea walls for storm surge protection for U.S. coastal cities will cost $400 billion. As a recent piece in Yale Environment 360 points out, that’s nearly the price of building the 47,000 miles of the interstate highway system, which took four decades and cost more than $500 billion in today’s dollars.

 

Where is that money going to come from? State and local taxes? The federal government? A benevolent god of climate adaptation? The politics of all this gets very complicated very quickly. Which neighborhoods get protected first?

 

New Orleans is a city that is particularly vulnerable to even small changes in sea level rise. After Hurricane Katrina hit the city in 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers spent about $14.6 billion on upgrades for hurricane defenses in the area. In the past 10 years, the Corps has built the largest surge barrier of its kind and the largest drainage-pump station in the world. It also strengthened levees, flood walls, gated structures and pump stations that form the 133-mile Greater New Orleans perimeter system.

 

Unfortunately, the Army Corps underestimated how rapidly things are changing. In the nearly 15 years since Katrina hit, the land around New Orleans has subsided and the seas have risen more quickly than engineers anticipated when they planned the system. As a result, the just-completed flood-protection system is already inadequate.

 

This week, the Army Corps released a report recommending a $3.2 billion, 50-year plan to upgrade and elevate the system. The upgrade, the report argued, was necessary to keep to the standard of protecting the city from a 100-year-flood (a flood that has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year).

 

Without the upgrade, the report said, homes behind the levees might now be ineligible for flood insurance. Without flood insurance, as everyone knows, the real estate values would collapse – and the city would begin a fast slide to oblivion. So to avert financial disaster, the city is forced to build ever higher, ever more expensive walls and barriers until either the money dries up or the engineering challenges become insurmountable.

 

The report pointed out that while the improvements would also result in a significant safety increase for residents, storms larger than the 100-year event would still pose a high risk to life “due to the extensive population protected by the levee system, even with good evacuation procedures.”

 

In other words, even after spending a total of $18 billion to protect the city, a big storm could bring another catastrophe. Every inch the seas rise, the risk rises with it. And the higher that wall, the greater the catastrophe when it fails.

 

I love New Orleans so it’s hard to say this, but in a rapidly warming world, it’s tough to see how it survives without a radical re-thinking of what it means to be a city on the coast. The same is true of course for any other city at extreme risk of rising waters, drought, and extreme heat. It’s not just a question of money and engineering skill. 

 

It’s a question of coming to grips with the scale of the crisis that confronts us, and with the profound injustices of who will be saved and who is doomed. In this sense, Greta’s anointment as the climate hero of our time is a sign of hope, but it is also a sign of how far we have to go.

+10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arris said:

+10

 

LOL!   Here ... a dose of reality for you ... 

 

https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

 

Oh ... and by the way ... don't you and pogorocks want to talk about the facts and data in the OP?  

 

Or are you two going to do what pogorocks just got done complaining about on the *we love greta* thread?   Just saying ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Folks, why do you think pogorocks RUNS from data every time it's mentioned?

 

The climate scientists have the actual data, Cretin. It all shows that the Earth is un-naturally heating up because of the rapid accumulation of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that mankind's activities have caused.

 

All you've ever got is denier cult propaganda, crackpot pseudo-science and lies. You are a paid troll....or a cretin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ConConfounder said:

The climate scientists have the actual data

 

How would you know, TRUTHER?   You never will discuss the actually numbers.  

 

Instead, you rely solely on appeals to authority to support your meme.

 

And making up numbers ... like your claimed 100 plus foot elevation for the Obama's Martha's Vineyard house.   :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

The climate scientists have the actual data, Cretin. It all shows that the Earth is un-naturally heating up because of the rapid accumulation of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that mankind's activities have caused.

 

All you've ever got is denier cult propaganda, crackpot pseudo-science and lies. You are a paid troll....or a cretin.

 

14 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

How would you know, TRUTHER?   You never will discuss the actually numbers.  

 

A bald faced lie....as usual from the troll BeACretin. I use actual numbers to debunk your denier cult lies all the time.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Instead, you rely solely on appeals to authority to support your meme.

 

Another example of your moronic misunderstanding of simple concepts.

Appeal to Authority

LogicallyFallacious.com

 

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

 

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

 

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.

 

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionallyIt is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

 

The appeal to authority fallacy is more about claims that require evidence than about facts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 

197_2.gif

 

And the braindead troll, BeACretin, makes a fool out of himself again....for about the millionth time.

 

Oh wow, an "Arctic Basin wide air temperature" graph that the moronic troll is trying to deceive people with. How retarded!

 

Global warming is GLOBAL, moron.

 

In the real world....

 

CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While there is a clear long-term global warming trend, some years do not show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and volcanic eruptions. (Figure source: updated from Karl et al. 2009).

GlobalChange.gov - Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

In the real world....

 

CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?

 

 

As I've said many times before, look closely at that chart, Truther.  The truth is in the details.

 

Temperatures were falling from about 1880 to 1910, even though CO2 level was rising.  That's contrary to your claimed correlation.  

 

And again from 1945 to about 1980, temperatures were falling even though CO2 level was rising.   Again, that's contrary to your claimed correlation.

 

So right off the bat, nearly half the time in that chart directly contradicts what you're trying to make people believe.

 

Furthermore, part of the AGW meme is that the CO2 level matters. They claim that the higher the level, the faster temperatures will rise.   But that chart shows a long period (35 years, between 1910 and 1945) when temperatures rose just as fast as they did (in the chart) in the 80's and early 90s, yet CO2 was only about 300 ppm.  That's just 3/4-ths the level in the 80s and early 90s).    That's not correlation with your thesis, Truther.  That's another contradiction of your meme.

 

Next, there's the period in the chart from about 1980 or so to 1997 when indeed both temperature and CO2 levels seemed to climb dramatically.   You and other Truthers have announced, *this is proof of your thesis*!!!!   But the temperatures in that portion of the chart can not be trusted because the AGWalarmist community has dishonestly manipulated (i.e., adjusted) them  ... always, amazingly enough, increasing the ones after 1970 while lowering the ones before that.  This has been demonstrated dozens of time at numerous data stations to the sounds of crickets from you and your ilk, pogorocks.  Plus, the AGWalarmists radically reduced the number of measurement stations during that period, and curiously, it was always the stations at high altitude and in colder locales that they eliminated, assuring gullible alarmists that they could extrapolate those locations from the rest.  But close examination has proven their extrapolations are GARBAGE.  And this been discussed repeatedly on this forum, and in the literature, again to the sound of crickets from you and your ilk, pogorocks.  And there's more wrong with the temperature data base.  Most of the eliminated stations were from rural stations.  So one must add the urban effect into the calculation .... but for years the alarmists have denied or minimized those effects.  Even today, they fight tooth and nail to ignore the influence of urbanization on increasing the temperatures in the database.  In short, AGWscientists have made the temperature database WORTHLESS for determining ANY correlation with CO2 levels, especially during this period on the chart.   Which is one reason we have massive amounts of snow in places AGWalarmists were claiming would never see snow again.    

 

And finally we come to the period after 1997, when we've had CO2 levels continue to climb (now above 400 ppm ... which was once claimed to be the level of *doom* by you in the AGWalarmist community) while un-manipulated global temperatures have been flat or falling slightly.  Your chart shows those falling temperatures out 2013.   Again that's completely contrary to the AGWmeme you keep regurgitating, pogorocks.    But it gets worse.   More recent charts (which I've posted numerous times when you made the same claim) show that discrepancy with your meme continuing even today.  Raw satellite temperature data has continued to NOT show global temperatures rising. Again, a direct contradiction to your claimed correlation. In fact, for the first 19 years of what was called "the pause", the AGWalarmist community sat there watching temperatures level off and begin to fall, according to the raw data coming from satellites.   They pulled their hair out and grew increasingly concerned. Some experts in the AGWalarmist community even went to far as to declare that if the pause went on beyond 19 years, the AGWalarmist thesis would be proven wrong.   And it did.   But rather than let admit the obvious, the AGWscammers decided it was time dishonestly alter the satellite data, just like they'd done with the ground based measurements.  So nowadays, if you get a chart of satellite temperatures from AGWbelieving scientists, or folks like pogorocks, you can't trust it either.  There was and is nothing wrong with the raw satellite temperature data.   The fact is that ground based temperature data measured at the time satellites first began to be used in the 1970s to record earth temperatures (which was before ground-based temperature instrumentation and databases were first manipulated by AGWalarmists) aligned with the data from the satellites.   In other words, the two separate data streams recorded what were essentially the same temperatures during that period, indicating there was no problem with the satellite data (or the ground based data).   You can see this in the following chart where pink is pre-manipulation ground based data and green is raw satellite data. 


 

landsatsplice.gif

 

If you ask me, the AGWalarmists who've manipulation temperature databases should be brought up on charges for conducting the second biggest scam in history (the first being the bogus impeachment effort against Trump).    Because they have cost this country and the world TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars.   And all the while ... it was the sun, STUPID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

A bald faced lie....as usual from the troll BeACretin. I use actual numbers to debunk your denier cult lies all the time.

 

False.  

 

I said "You never will discuss the actually numbers."   Discuss ... as in *debate the accuracy and meaning of*.    

 

And I think you're about to prove my point yet again.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

And the braindead troll, BeACretin, makes a fool out of himself again....for about the millionth time.

 

Oh wow, an "Arctic Basin wide air temperature" graph that the moronic troll is trying to deceive people with. How retarded!

 

Global warming is GLOBAL, moron.

 

In the real world....

 

CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While there is a clear long-term global warming trend, some years do not show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and volcanic eruptions. (Figure source: updated from Karl et al. 2009).

GlobalChange.gov - Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment

 

9 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

As I've said many times before, let's try to moronically and un-scientifically nitpick that chart because otherwise it's really hard to deny the obvious very strong link between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

 

As you have moronically claimed many times and been scientifically debunked many times, BeACretin.

 

2018NCA_TempCO2_UPDATED2.jpg

Rising Global Temperatures and Rising CO2 Levels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

As you have moronically claimed many times and been scientifically debunked many times, BeACretin.

 

See.   Just like I predicted.   You run from discussing (as in debating the accuracy and meaning of) the actual number AGAIN.   It's what TRUTHERS do, folks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, for a dose of reality …

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/15/the-toxic-rhetoric-of-climate-change/

 

Quote

 

The toxic rhetoric of climate change


by Judith Curry 


“I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s  all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1 am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified.”  – Young adult in the UK

Letter from a worried young adult in the UK


I received this letter last nite, via email:


“I have no idea if this is an accurate email of your but I just found it and thought I’d take a chance. My name is XXX I’m 20 years old from the UK. I have been well the only word to describe it is suffering as I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s  all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified. I’ve tried to do my own research, I’ve tried everything. I’m not stupid, I’m a pretty rational thinker but at this point sometimes I literally wish I wasn’t born, I’m just so miserable and Petrified. I’ve recently made myself familiar with your work and would be so appreciative of any findings you can give me or hope or advice over email. I’m already vegetarian and I recycle everything so I’m really trying. Please help me. In anyway you can. I’m at my wits end here.”


JC’s response


We have been hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc. In a recent op-ed, Greta Thunberg stated: “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”  From the Extinction Rebellion: “It is understood that we are facing an unprecedented global emergency. We are in a life or death situation of our own making.”


It is more difficult tune out similar statements from responsible individuals representing the United Nations. In his opening remarks for the UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid (COP25), UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that “the point of no-return is no longer over the horizon.” Hoesung Lee, the Chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said “if we stay on our current path, [we] threaten our existence on this planet.”


So . . . exactly what should we be worried about? Consider the following statistics:


    •    Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.
    •    While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.
    •    While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.
    •    Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.
    •    The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015.


While many people may be unaware of this good news, they do react to each weather or climate disaster in the news. Activist scientists and the media quickly seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.


So . . . why are we so worried about climate change? The concern over climate change is not so much about the warming that has occurred over the past century. Rather, the concern is about what might happen in the 21st century as a result of increasing fossil fuel emissions. Emphasis on ‘might.’


Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model projection that predicts future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. However these alarming scenarios of the 21st century climate change require that, like the White Queen in Alice and Wonderland, we believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.


The most alarming scenarios of 21st century climate change are associated with the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario. Often erroneously described as a ‘business as usual’ scenario, RCP8.5 assumes unrealistic trends long-term trends for population and a slowing of technological innovation. Even more unlikely is the assumption that the world will largely be powered by coal.


In spite of the implausibility of this scenario, RCP8.5 is the favored scenario for publications based on climate model simulations. In short, RCP8.5 is a very useful recipe for cooking up scenarios alarming impacts from manmade climate change. Which are of course highlighted and then exaggerated by press releases and media reports.


Apart from the issue of how much greenhouse gases might increase, there is a great deal of uncertainty about much the planet will warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – referred to as ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS). The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) provided a range between 1 and 6oC, with a ‘likely’ range between 1.5 and 4.5oC.


In the years since the 5th Assessment Report, the uncertainty has grown. The latest climate model results – prepared for the forthcoming IPCC 6th Assessment Report – shows that a majority of the climate models are producing values of ECS exceeding 5oC. The addition of poorly understood additional processes into the models has increased confusion and uncertainty. At the same time, refined efforts to determine values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from the historical data record obtain values of ECS about 1.6oC, with a range from 1.05 to 2.7oC.


With this massive range of uncertainty in the values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the lowest value among the climate models is 2.3oC, with few models having values below 3oC. Hence the lower end of the range of ECS is not covered by the climate models, resulting in temperature projections for the 21st century that are biased high, with a smaller range relative to the range of uncertainty in ECS.


With regards to sea level rise, recent U.S. national assessment reports have included a worst-case sea level rise scenario for the 21st century of 2.5 m. Extreme estimates of sea level rise rely on RCP8.5 and climate model simulations that are on average running too hot relative to the uncertainty range of ECS. The most extreme scenarios of 21st century sea level rise are based on speculative and poorly understood physical processes that are hypothesized to accelerate the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, recent research indicates that these processes are very unlikely to influence sea level rise in the 21st century. To date, in most of the locations that are most vulnerable to sea level rise, local sinking from geological processes and land use has dominated over sea level rise from global warming.


To further complicate climate model projections for the 21st century, the climate models focus only on manmade climate change – they make no attempt to predict natural climate variations from the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term variations in ocean circulation patterns. We have no idea how natural climate variability will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming.


We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence future extreme weather events.  Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health.


We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.


As noted in a recent paper co-authored by Dr. Tim Palmer of Oxford University, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/26/1906691116.full.pdf, there is “deep dissatisfaction with the ability of our models to inform society about the pace of warming, how this warming plays out regionally, and what it implies for the likelihood of surprises.” “Unfortunately, [climate scientists] circling the wagons leads to false impressions about the source of our confidence and about our ability to meet the scientific challenges posed by a world that we know is warming globally.”


We have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change, but we have also oversimplified its ‘solution’. Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels to ameliorate the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.


Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require continued management over the coming centuries.


We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. However, the perception of manmade climate change as a near-term apocalypse and has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider. The perceived ‘urgency’ of drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions is forcing us to make near term decisions that may be suboptimal for the longer term. Further, the monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems that we might have more success in addressing in the near term.


Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies and increase access to grid electricity, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.


We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.


The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult.  Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously.  On the other hand, the extremely alarmist rhetoric has frightened the bejesus out of children and young adults.


JC message to children and young adults: Don’t believe the hype that you are hearing from Extinction Rebellion and the like.  Rather than going on strike or just worrying, take the time to learn something about the science of climate change.  The IPCC reports are a good place to start; for a critical perspective on the IPCC, Climate Etc. is a good resource.


Climate change — manmade and/or natural — along with extreme weather events, provide reasons for concern.   However, the rhetoric and politics of climate change have become absolutely toxic and nonsensical.


In the mean time, live your best life.  Trying where you can to lessen your impact on the planet is a worthwhile thing to do.   Societal prosperity is the best insurance policy that we have for reducing our vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate.


JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters:  Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history.  You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather.  You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context.

 


I've repeatedly asked pogorocks if he’s a member of Extinction Rebellion and he’s repeatedly refused to answer.  This leads me to believe he is a member.   Like JC says … YOU ARE YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY …


… TRUTHER.

 

Oh ... and by the way ... the response above actually assumes there is a significant linkage between CO2 and global temperatures.   The truth is that there probably isn't.     For the many reasons I've noted.   :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

See.   Just like I predicted.   You run from discussing (as in debating the accuracy and meaning of) the actual number AGAIN.   It's what TRUTHERS do, folks.

 

 

See....Just like I predicted.    You run away from dealing with the actual scientific facts and data, which are overwhelmingly affirmed by the world scientific community....post some fraudulent denier cult pseudo-science from discredited fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlets with zero credibility, moronically declare victory, and run away to fraudulently spew your thoroughly debunked drivel on another thread...ad naseum! You are a troll! And lying and running away frim reality is what denier cult trolls do!

 

In the real world.....

 

The current scientific consensus is that:

 

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...