Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

Soon it will be as if warmers never existed because no one will admit to having been one just like no one will admit to having supported eugenics even though at one time it was mainstream consensus science.

Keep your running shoes handy old man. Mobs can be quick.

So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That should tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.

How did he threaten you?

 

[PMZ]

I told you why this would not rise to importance.. No one BACK THEN had models showing CONTINUOUS ACCELERATING warming. It would have invalidated nothing except the wild ass stinky numbers that were coming straight out of J. Hansen's ass..

You're slogging an uninterested mule here. I've shown that we are measuring 12 to 16 yrs of no warming. That's all that is required... No what ifs. No ficticuous set-ups or gimmicks.

It's not as if there aren't indirect indicators of rising temperatures. Ice cap shrinking and oceans rising...

So you say we need better models. Agreed. There are a shload of people working on that as we speak. Am I correct in assuming that you're an electrical engineering student? You seem to have an interest in this topic. Maybe you can be the one to break the code. I hear there's money in it.

.. a little more mature than "an engineering student".. I've got a lot of mileage in science and engineering.. I'm overexposed on these boards. So we'll leave it at that..

This is Hercules cleaning up the stable type of task.. EVERYTHING has to go. Starting with the fiction that simple Globally averaged numbers inform us as to the underlying system dynamics of how the planet works..

Here's a simple proposition to consider.

Every passive body in space must balance incoming and outgoing radiated energy. If incoming is greater than outgoing warming will occur until balance is re-achieved.

Prove that statement wrong.

 

[PMZ]

Keep your running shoes handy old man. Mobs can be quick.

So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That should tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.

I "aim" for J. Hansen's salary and I get accused of making threats..

Notice the diff.. It takes a leftist MOB to do the job.. No individual initiative..

If you expect to earn Hansen's salary you better get going. You have about ten years of school and 30 years of experience to catch up on.

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't say that, you dumb fuck. You just did, though.

Sure he did. he said if we had continued the stone age way of life, "we would be fine." All the things I listed are part of the stone age way of living.

We would not have to worry about climate change. We could just walk away from where the water no longer was to where it moved to.

And what stops us from doing that now?

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, Snookie is a great one for castigating others who don't treat posters with the proper respect.

This website would be in shambles without my moral guidance. It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.

Guide by example, fuck head.

So, this is your example of leadership.

 

[PMZ]

So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That should tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.

I "aim" for J. Hansen's salary and I get accused of making threats..

Notice the diff.. It takes a leftist MOB to do the job.. No individual initiative..

Indeed.

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that refuses to acknowledge...or even accept...that people are individuals.

Who has that mindset?

 

[bripat9643]

This website would be in shambles without my moral guidance. It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.

Guide by example, fuck head.

So, this is your example of leadership.

That was supposed to be ironic.

 

[PMZ]

Indeed.

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that refuses to acknowledge...or even accept...that people are individuals.

That wasn't a threat, it was a warning. And one I've made before.

Whoopty-shit.

When things really start going to shit around here: food shortages, water shortages, storms taking out more and more coastal infrastructure, people are likely to start looking around for the brainiacs who told them they had nothing to worry about. People like you.

Okay, dumbass. Now you get to explain in detail how everyone voting Democrat would prevent all that.

Most Democrats are liberals. People who see the future as an opportunity for progress. People who solve problems.

Most Republicans are conservatives. People who see the future as a threat. People who either create or ignore problems.

 

[PMZ]

Indeed.

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that refuses to acknowledge...or even accept...that people are individuals.

That wasn't a threat, it was a warning. And one I've made before. When things really start going to shit around here: food shortages, water shortages, storms taking out more and more coastal infrastructure, people are likely to start looking around for the brainiacs who told them they had nothing to worry about. People like you.

Careful, the conservatives have all the guns.

Liberals have the US military.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC to 97%'er: LOL, yer fucked

 

[PMZ]

Sure he did. he said if we had continued the stone age way of life, "we would be fine." All the things I listed are part of the stone age way of living.

We would not have to worry about climate change. We could just walk away from where the water no longer was to where it moved to.

And what stops us from doing that now?

We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will. The less we force the climate to warm, the less rebuilding we'll have to do.

Two parallel massive projects. The adaptation to a new climate, and the change to sustainable energy. Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.

 

[PMZ]

Guide by example, fuck head.

So, this is your example of leadership.

That was supposed to be ironic.

Very.

 

[bripat9643]

We would not have to worry about climate change. We could just walk away from where the water no longer was to where it moved to.

And what stops us from doing that now?

We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will. The less we force the climate to warm, the less rebuilding we'll have to do.

Two parallel massive projects. The adaptation to a new climate, and the change to sustainable energy. Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.

According to the IPCC you worship, even under the worst scenario sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years. I can already see people fleeing for their very lives!

I think adapting to a one foot increase in sea level will be a whole lot cheaper than spending $73 trillion to mitigate CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that wasn't a threat, it was a warning. And one i've made before. When things really start going to shit around here: Food shortages, water shortages, storms taking out more and more coastal infrastructure, people are likely to start looking around for the brainiacs who told them they had nothing to worry about. People like you.

careful, the conservatives have all the guns.

liberals have the us military.

lol!

 

[PMZ]

And what stops us from doing that now?

We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will. The less we force the climate to warm, the less rebuilding we'll have to do.

Two parallel massive projects. The adaptation to a new climate, and the change to sustainable energy. Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.

According to the IPCC you worship, even under the worst scenario sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years. I can already see people fleeing for their very lives!

I think adapting to a one foot increase in sea level will be a whole lot cheaper than spending $73 trillion to mitigate CO2.

Nobody has any technology to reduce atmospheric CO2. If we could, we would.

We have to move to sustainable energy in any case. The only variable is when.

You seem to think that it's possible to know that we aren't already on an irreversible path that will melt all Arctic snow, ice, and tundra. Where did your information come from?

 

[PMZ]

careful, the conservatives have all the guns.

liberals have the us military.

lol!

I can't imagine what's funny about that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

liberals have the us military.

lol!

I can't imagine what's funny about that.

The one clown said that mobs of angry people will seek out AGW deniers, to punish them for whatever disasters he feels we're in for. I'm guessing these victims will be conservatives, the citizens with all the guns.

You feel the "liberal military" will be helping these angry mobs?

You liberals are funny. Not very bright though.

 

[PMZ]

lol!

I can't imagine what's funny about that.

The one clown said that mobs of angry people will seek out AGW deniers, to punish them for whatever disasters he feels we're in for. I'm guessing these victims will be conservatives, the citizens with all the guns.

I didn't say that.

You feel the "liberal military" will be helping these angry mobs?

You liberals are funny. Not very bright though.

You don't think that the US military won't respond to riots?

But the real question is not riots but wars. China and or India after our resources necessary for life, like water and food.

 

[PMZ]

And what stops us from doing that now?

We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will. The less we force the climate to warm, the less rebuilding we'll have to do.

Two parallel massive projects. The adaptation to a new climate, and the change to sustainable energy. Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.

According to the IPCC you worship, even under the worst scenario sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years. I can already see people fleeing for their very lives!

I think adapting to a one foot increase in sea level will be a whole lot cheaper than spending $73 trillion to mitigate CO2.

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

 

[bripat9643]

We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will. The less we force the climate to warm, the less rebuilding we'll have to do.

Two parallel massive projects. The adaptation to a new climate, and the change to sustainable energy. Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.

According to the IPCC you worship, even under the worst scenario sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years. I can already see people fleeing for their very lives!

I think adapting to a one foot increase in sea level will be a whole lot cheaper than spending $73 trillion to mitigate CO2.

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

THe chances of Greenland or Antarctica melting are indistinguishable from zero, so your article is a non sequitur.