|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..25..47..69..91..111~112~113~114~115..138..160..182..204..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Check out the CBOE and US 10 year bonds.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tr......CN0Z2038 It's hot out - global warming. It's cold out - Anthropogenic Global Warming http://in.reuters.com/article/india-solar-idINKCN0ZY0WG :)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
Rut roh. Global warming scientists on trip to prove lack of arctic sea ice stuck by arctic sea ice that wasn't supposed to be there. Unsettled science for them.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/20/g......sea-ice/ |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 13, 2016, Pop Haydn wrote: Erosion and subsidence are the main cause. In LA, these areas were built on marsh lands that sink or rise depending on a lot of factors. Isle de Jean is sinking not the water rising. hurricanes and some development has changed the barrier island structure so that erosion happens quicker. LA has no beaches or real shore line, it's a huge swamp from NO on down. You can build on swamps by draining them and elevating structures, but you can't stop natural land actions for undoing it. You notice all the houses are on pilings. If it was real land, they wouldn't need that. If you look at home built in the early 1900s in flood areas, you see they're built on mounds or on the highest point of land. Once we got federal flood insurance, that kind of natural building stopped. Once the Mississippi river was 50 miles west of where it is today. Natural disasters disrupted it's flow, sank land and raised other lands. It's more than climate change. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
On Tuesday, two government science agencies announced that the first six months of 2016 were the warmest first half of any year on record.
The data confirms what climate scientists have been startled to see during the past several years — the Earth's climate has made a step jump into a new, hotter era with more intense and frequent extreme events. http://mashable.com/2016/07/20/climate-o......sOlKP5qk |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
What wouldn’t government science agencies announce when there is a $7 trillion investment opportunity at stake one wonders?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2016, tommy wrote: Do you question the numbers? |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7493 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2016, Pop Haydn wrote: Of course, key word is GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, LOL! To funny. Again, GW or now Gloabl Climate change since they cannot prove GW is such a concern that NOTHING is being done about it. Obama had plenty of time his first two years in office when he had the majority in Congress to pass anything he wanted to but didn't. So don't keep crying when they could have took more of our tax dollars without fail but code not to.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
No: I tend to go along with their fiction for my amusement.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
"We have left the 20th century behind and will likely not return in our lifetimes," said Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "The most important takeaway from these analyses is not that we ranked first or second or third-warmest for a given month, but that we are in a neighborhood completely beyond what we saw just three to four years ago," he said in an email.
Ahira Sánchez-Lugo, who works with Arndt at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, said that through 2015, there had been 40 straight years with above average temperatures, with the last cooler than average year occurring in 1976. http://mashable.com/2016/07/20/climate-o......sOlKP5qk |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Obedience to and constant calls to authority, aimed at the debased the dumbed down majority. What else have the government agencies and oracles announced today? “Any rain, mainly in the north, will soon die away this evening to leave a dry night with clearer spells. It will still feel mild overnight.” Oh good since the sea is not boiling I might go for ride on bicycle later. Another one of the top climate hysterics is facing trial, have you noticed? Somebody must have questioned her numbers.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
There is still no provable link between warmer temperatures and human activity. Maybe we're entering a hotter age and if that's the case, nothing can be done.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2016, The Hermit wrote: How did you come to this conclusion?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Confirmation bias?
We are intelligent creatures. If we are indeed moving into a warmer period OK I can accept that. But historically we have shown we CAN affect our environment. Lake Erie being a good example. Smog being another and there are lots of examples. We can and do have an environmental impact. Lets at least stop denying it. Now lets also stop the doomday prophesy while we are at it. Maybe if we approach it like adults without an agenda we might have a shot at fixing it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Actually ... The proof needs to come from the claimant. I believe there is a temperature increase over the years. But I've never seen proof that it's manmade. Just speculation.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
"Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.
"Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years. "Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.” "Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a "forcing") of the greenhouse effect. As NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has explained, water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, which caps off its greenhouse effect. Climatologists therefore categorize water vapor as a feedback rather than a forcing factor. (Contrarians who don't see water vapor in climate models are looking for it in the wrong place.) "Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem." ~ http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl......onsense/ |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2016, Slim King wrote: You mean you don't understand the nature of the evidence?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
The data has been proven to have been manipulated by Mann and others. So now, the 5% of possible human addition to the atmosphere is the tipping point. No one still knows what the earth is capable of further absorbing. As to provable, there are a lot of variables that are not known or taken into account. I have posted those articles where scientists are surprised by new variables they didn't consider. We are measuring very short timeframes. All of the climate models to date have been wrong and missed their predictions. There is plenty of contradictory evidence and disagreement among respected scientists (Bill Nye excluded).
The nature of the evidence is based on who is collecting it. The AGW people have proven themselves to use data to fit the narrative (hockey stick, etc). It's faith based at this point. Believe what you want. Not to mention, no one knows the total effect of a rise of 1 or 2 degrees. Also know one can state categorically how much of a rise will occur. All conjecture. You want to spend trillions on that? |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2016, The Hermit wrote: "It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change. "First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements, from many locations. Notwithstanding their differences, they corroborate that Earth has been getting sharply warmer. "A 2006 National Research Council review of the evidence concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries"—which is the section of the graph most relevant to current climate trends. The report placed less faith in the reconstructions back to 900 A.D., although it still viewed them as "plausible." Medieval warm periods in Europe and Asia with temperatures comparable to those seen in the 20th century were therefore similarly plausible but might have been local phenomena: the report noted "the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain." And a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today. "After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called the Wegman report, which was not formally peer reviewed, was more critical of the hockey stick paper. But correction of the errors it pointed out did not substantially change the shape of the hockey stick graph. In 2008 Mann and his colleagues issued an updated version of the temperature reconstruction that echoed their earlier findings. "But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted... What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead." ~ http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl......onsense/ |
|||||||||
The Hermit Veteran user 301 Posts |
But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted... What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead."
If the mechanics were correct wouldn't you need some past evidence to support it? Once again, all the projections have been wrong. Almost all overstated by several degrees. it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does (ONLY IF YOU KNOW WHERE TO LOOK) —and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead." (ANOTHER UNKNOWN AND POSSIBLY UNACCOUNTED FOR) This is the unknown and unaccounted for part of it all. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..25..47..69..91..111~112~113~114~115..138..160..182..204..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |