maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 42  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15851
Reputation points: 720
Anthropoid wrote:
Instead of "So it goes," you should sign every post with "Goracle be praised."

I like Vonnegut. ;)

So it goes.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:20 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16173
Reputation points: 13228
Quote:
Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study
AFP/File / Thomas B. Shea With a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the Earth is already coping with a crescendo of climate impacts including deadly droughts, erratic rainfall, and storm surges engorged by rising seas

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.
(Continued)
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst- ... doc-wx0de1

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20857
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15427
Good news for many.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15851
Reputation points: 720
abradley wrote:
Quote:
Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study
AFP/File / Thomas B. Shea With a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the Earth is already coping with a crescendo of climate impacts including deadly droughts, erratic rainfall, and storm surges engorged by rising seas

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.
(Continued)
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst- ... doc-wx0de1

One more study on the issue of climate sensitivity.

Quote:
By how much will Earth's average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

That "known unknown" is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the ultimate authority on climate science -- has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2 C to 3.4 C, with a best estimate of 2.8 C (5 F).

If accurate, it precludes the most destructive doomsday scenarios.


Certainly not so bad as the IPCC estimate.

But how realistic it really is?

Certainly one can reduce uncertainty range by excluding the uncertainty. :roll:

Quote:
One wild card not taken into consideration by the new model is the possibility of rapid shifts in climate brought on by the planet itself.

"There is indeed evidence that the climate system can undergo abrupt changes or 'tipping points'," Cox told AFP.

The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica -- any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth's favour.


But the permafrost is thawing and Greenland ice sheet is losing mass.

Methane sinkholes on Siberian tundra:

Image

Methane craters on the Artic Sea floor:

Image

When I find more informed comments on Cox's study, I will post them, naturally.

PS. I am not criticizing Cox's study of equilibrium climate sensitivity (I have not seen the paper, and I doubt my ability to understand it anyway), just pointing out that it is not a prediction about future temperature on Earth.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11919
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15961
Factors not considered: desertification, runoff (of myriad sorts) into oceans, changes to the albedo and heat sink of large swaths of land as a result of human structures and machines (even short of their exhaust products), 7.5 billion large brained apes and multiple billions of domesticated animals: all generating heat, farting, and dying; major changes to physiography and ecosystems; every other form of airborne pollutant which might have some direct or indirect effect on Earth's albedo or heat retention.

Just what I can think of off the top of my head.

But CO^2, which plants can fucking EAT, is what we need to be worried about.

Meanwhile, last I checked White Nose Syndrome has reduced many populations of critically important North American bats by 90 even 95% . . . Fucking Goreacle Retards. Honestly not even worth engaging with them: even when faced with mountains of sound skepticism, they refuse to shut their traps and incessant repeat the same tired mantras and engage in the same useless evasion and chicanery. For the true believers like Nero, it has never been about understanding Earth, its climate or other dynamic systems and how human population growth and industrial development have impacted natural ecology and Earth systems.

They are some of the most willfully wicked and excoriable cretins ever to pass breath between their lips in the form of words. Calling true-believers in the simple Goreacle versions of "climate change" "scientists" is like calling the Taliban secular humanitarian rerformers.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15851
Reputation points: 720
Anthropoid wrote:
Factors not considered: desertification, runoff (of myriad sorts) into oceans, changes to the albedo and heat sink of large swaths of land as a result of human structures and machines (even short of their exhaust products), 7.5 billion large brained apes and multiple billions of domesticated animals: all generating heat, farting, and dying; major changes to physiography and ecosystems; every other form of airborne pollutant which might have some direct or indirect effect on Earth's albedo or heat retention.

Just what I can think of off the top of my head.

But CO^2, which plants can fucking EAT, is what we need to be worried about.

Meanwhile, last I checked White Nose Syndrome has reduced many populations of critically important North American bats by 90 even 95% . . . Fucking Goreacle Retards. Honestly not even worth engaging with them: even when faced with mountains of sound skepticism, they refuse to shut their traps and incessant repeat the same tired mantras and engage in the same useless evasion and chicanery. For the true believers like Nero, it has never been about understanding Earth, its climate or other dynamic systems and how human population growth and industrial development have impacted natural ecology and Earth systems.

They are some of the most willfully wicked and excoriable cretins ever to pass breath between their lips in the form of words. Calling true-believers in the simple Goreacle versions of "climate change" "scientists" is like calling the Taliban secular humanitarian rerformers.

During Christmas I was more suffering from the Red Nose Syndrome. :lol:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 3296
Location: Houston, Texas
Reputation points: 2680
It is clear that enhanced greenhouse warming is a failed prediction and the true climate response is in the vicinity of 1 degree per doubling.

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11919
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15961
The meteroric rise of human dominance of Earth has CLEARLY impacted natural ecologies and may be exerted influence(s) on climatic processes. CO^2 might even be one of the contributors.

But it is basic science that CO^2 is one of the WEAKEST green house gases, and that combined with its minuscule concentrations (even at its geological maxima during the Mesozoic) all suggest at a glance that any model of acute, rapid anthropogenic climate change that hinged totally and completely on CO^2 pollution was always a weak contender. This is on top of the fact that CO^2 is consumed by photoautotrophs and as such, MORE CO^2 output may actually PROMOTE ecological health by promoting plant growth; a reasonable starting hypothesis at least, a detailed and careful analysis might reveal a much more complicated story.

Being interested in anthropogenic impacts on natural ecology and Earth systems more broadly is wonderful. I applaud it.

But most "climate change" protagonists belie ANY real interest by virtue of drumming an overly-simplified, empirically-suspect, and causally-questionable model with limited (and even specious) empirical support and which also shows a profoundly clear political/economic agenda: carbon tax.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:34 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19241
Reputation points: 18052
jollypillager wrote:

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.


Been that way for awhile.

Once big money changing hands became part & parcel, it quickly became it's own realm of politics, profit, and belief.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:52 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15851
Reputation points: 720
jollypillager wrote:
It is clear that enhanced greenhouse warming is a failed prediction and the true climate response is in the vicinity of 1 degree per doubling.

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.

Obviously you did read the article about the climate sensitivity study at all.

Doubling the CO2 in in the atmosphere will rise that 1°C is physics, professor Cox's study science.

BTW the study shows that the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) is 2.8°C, not so far from the IPCC estimate 3°C.

The politics comes from denier side. :twisted:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 42  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group