Islands Disappear As Ocean Levels Rise

[Toddsterpatriot]

Grayson has always been a smarmy twat.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you actually that ignorant of science? Show us properly conducted studies that refute GHG warming, or the anthropogenic origin of the atmosphere's increased CO2. Show us science that suggests a BETTER explanation for the warming of the last 150 years. If you plan on falling back on "cannot prove a negative" very often, prepare to frequently be the butt of laughter.

Well, now you have reworded the question to something more reasonable. Now you have to remember that extraordinary claims require proof, I am not responsible for disproving AGW, you are responsible for proving it and so far your side only has computer models that do not reflect reality.

The only response I need to make is to refer you to the already established fact that solar activity is the main driving force in our climate. YOUR side has to prove that man is over-riding that. And so far, your side has failed. Instead, you have fraud, coersion, and corruption.

And you claim a scientific background? And love history? LOL.

Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius. Absorption spectra of GHGs. Slight decrease in TSI, and large increase in temperatures and GHGs. Scientific background? I think you don't know shit concerning science or the history of science.

 

[Ernie S.]

And there's your only proof that CO2 is dangerous. Amazing that you laud Alan Grayson, the second biggest kook in Congress.

 

[Crick]

Hardly. I am asking you to identify a published study that fails to use the scientific method. If you think it impossible to prove a negative, don't bother trying to show us that you're not an idiot.

Again with the deceit so prevalent among you believers. Let me remind you of what you said:

"And how about an example of someone defending your views with the scientific method? Where is some of that real science that comes to the conclusions you hold to be true?"

We cannot use the scientific method to prove the non-existence of AGW. You are asking us to prove a negative.

I asked you for two things: a published, peer-reviewed climate science study that did not use the scientific method (an example to support the charge you made) and one that defended your views that did.

Are you now suggesting that you accept AGW? If not, then someone defending your views would be someone refuting AGW. And before you blather on about proving a negative, you might want to read up on Karl Popper and falsification. There are many ways AGW could be falsified, but no one has been able to accomplish any of them.

 

[Crick]

And there's your only proof that CO2 is dangerous. Amazing that you laud Alan Grayson, the second biggest kook in Congress.

Our only proof? As much as I admire Senator Grayson for his political views and his willingness to bluntly speak the truth, he is not a climate scientist, he is not representative of climate scientists nor a spokesman for climate science. He is certainly not the last word on carbon dioxide. I can honestly say that I find his repartee in that clip disappointingly puerile.

No one is arguing that we need to worry about atmospheric CO2 for its toxicity. We worry about its ability to trap thermal energy in the atmosphere and to raise the temperature of the planet. If you have some cute little video clip that throws all THAT science into doubt, play on, MacDuff.

 

[Ernie S.]

At 400 parts/million, CO2 comprises 1 molecule of 2,500 in our air. If solar radiation raises that one molecule one degree, what effect does that have on the temperature of our sample McDumb?

 

[Old Rocks]

At 400 parts/million, CO2 comprises 1 molecule of 2,500 in our air. If solar radiation raises that one molecule one degree, what effect does that have on the temperature of our sample McDumb?

Ernie, you fucked up dumb ass, 20 ppm in the eemian made a differance of about 8 meters in sea level.

Eemian sea level rise of 8m was 95% meltwater – another paleo warning?

Eemian sea level rise of 8m was 95% meltwater – another paleo warning?
Posted on July 19, 2011 by Rolf Schuttenhelm


Sounds like there’s new food to calibrate our oceans’ sea level sensitivity. In red the image shows inundations around the Gulf of Mexico under Eemian sea levels. That’s ‘bye bye Houston, New Orleans, Miami.’

Two days ago we looked at thePliocene, an epoch with CO2 concentrations around as high as they’ll be in 4 years time, 2-3 degrees higher temperatures and with average sea levels 25 meters above today’s levels.

But our regulars may also remember another important paleoclimate comparison, with the Eemian, in between Pleistocene glaciations – when temperatures we thought[!] were ‘more than 2 degrees Celsius higher’ and -we thought- sea levels bumped 4-6 meters.

In February we paid attention to a new paper by James Hansen, who argues the Eemian temperature difference could have been ‘smaller than one degree’ and who uses the Eemian sea levels to illustrate that our path to 2 degrees warming is too much – as it will manifest itself in multiple meters of sea level rise.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Yes, it does make a differance,

 

[jc456]

So funny you had to quote it twice?

Would you care to show us an example of climate science (not blogs, not newspaper & magazine articles) failing to use the scientific method?

And how about an example of someone defending your views with the scientific method? Where is some of that real science that comes to the conclusions you hold to be true? For that matter, what DO you hold to be true regarding global warming, its causes and the behavior of climate scientists?

You are asking us to prove a negative, if you had the ability to think on your own, you'd know that what you are asking is ridiculous.

well they can't prove their position, so the only alternative for them is to say prove it isn't. funny stuff eh?

 

[TNHarley]

Natural Earth evolution!?! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

 

[jc456]

Hardly. I am asking you to identify a published study that fails to use the scientific method. If you think it impossible to prove a negative, don't bother trying to show us that you're not an idiot.

here from the AR5 report IPCC stated no warming, that would be a pause. I've posted that in here forever now. CO2 went up and temperatures didn't follow. hmmmmmmmmm

excerpt:
"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."

Blows all CO2 claims out of the water.

 

[TNHarley]

Instead of bitching, whining and complaining about things we cant control, you limp wrists could be preparing yourself.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

 

[Liminal]

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

Why are you deniers all so incredibly stupid all the time?

 

[Ernie S.]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist.

So much for AGW....

 

[Ernie S.]

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

Why are you deniers all so incredibly stupid all the time?

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

 

[Crick]

Do you? Do you understand the irrelevance of conditions on this planet prior to the rise of human civilization? Do you understand the significance of the RATE at which things change?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

Why are you deniers all so incredibly stupid all the time?

though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

Why are you deniers all so incredibly stupid all the time?

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you? Do you understand the irrelevance of conditions on this planet prior to the rise of human civilization? Do you understand the significance of the RATE at which things change?

Do you understand the earth would change regardless if humans we're here or not


.

 

[Crick]

Of course it will change. It will change from cause. Right now the cause is us and the result will hurt us - it already is. We can do something about that.