Jump to content
BANGKOK

bristolboy

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    11,697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bristolboy

  1. Thank you for your factual contributions to this discussion. Your mastery of the data is truly remarkable.
  2. And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate. In short, citing newspaper articles is a ridiculous way to establish what the scientific consensus was during a particular era. And nothing you've cited here has anything to do with your ridiculous and false claims about wrong predictions made by the IPCC. But this is what you do. Every time I come up with evidence to prove the falsity of your contentions, you just jump to something else leaving behind a growing litter pile of false assertions.
  3. Lots of name calling but as usual no responses to specific challenges to your claims. Instead you just move on with different untrue claims and untrue caricatures. Yes, the IPCC does predict huge problems if nothing is done to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions. But none of those predictions say that they should already have come to pass. So the only ranting I can see is coming from you. In fact the average global temperature has risen at a far higher rate than your claim of .26 per century as the chart below shows with various estimates coming from 4 of the leading climatological research center and all in close agreement. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record As for your claims, as per usual, you provide no source. Maybe your claims come from "The Journal of Because I Say So"?
  4. In other words, you haven't seen any projections from the climatological community of a rise of 8 meters by the year 2100 either. As for the IPCC latest projection here it is: "For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf So the meter projection is at the outer limit. That said, your assertion "that would be a faster rate then at the very peak of recovery from the last glacial period." is false. Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age interrupted by rapid 'jumps' Researchers have estimated that sea-level rose by an average of about 1 meter per century at the end of the last Ice Age, interrupted by rapid "jumps" during which it rose by up to 2.5 meters per century. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf It's also significant to note that as the results of new research come in, with each new report the IPCC has consistently raised its estimates for global sea level rise. And once again you haven't identified the person or organization that created this graph. This habit of yours doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your claims. But given what follows when you do identify the source, (see post #388)I'm not surprised that you don't.
  5. No one in the science based climatological community has predicted anything like an 8 meter rise in the near future or even by the year 2100. It's been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that you don't have a grasp of the facts. Why are you so eager to further confirm that?
  6. Well, if you mean by that an acceleration of global temperature rise, that's one thing. But it's only a technical point. What concerns thoughtful people is the consequences of that rise Which are rising at an accelerating rate: NASA: Greenland’s ice melt is accelerating, aligning with ‘worst case’ projections The Greenland Ice Sheet is rapidly melting, having lost 3.8 trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2018, a new study from NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) finds. The study combined twenty-six independent satellite datasets to track global warming’s effect on Greenland, one of the largest ice sheets on Earth, and the ice sheet melt’s impact on rising sea levels. The findings, which forecast an approximate three-to-five inches of global sea level rise by 2100, are in alignment with previous worst-case projections if the average rate of Greenland’s ice loss continues https://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/2019/12/11/nasa-greenlands-ice-melt-is-accelerating-aligning-with-worst-case-projections/ New study finds sea level rise accelerating The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data. This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017 The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y). Recent observations have shown that the ice sheet is losing mass along the periphery due the enhanced flow of its glaciers, at a rate that has been increasing over time, while there is no long-term trend change in snowfall accumulation in the interior [i.e., Antarctica contributes to sea-level rise (SLR) principally via changes in ice dynamics] (5⇓–7). https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
  7. Once again, here is a link to a peer reviewed published paper that showed that, in fact, most papers in accredited peer-reviews science journas from the years 1965 to 1979 predicted global warming due to the rise greenhouse gases. The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus "Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf
  8. It is true that climatologists detected a possible but weak link between global temperature and sunspot activity. The less sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperature. But sunspot activity has been in a sharp decline in the very period where global warming accelerated. So if there is a connection between sunspot activity and global warming, that's even a stronger argument for greenhouse gases being the cause. And as I suspected, that paper you cited isn't peer reviewed and the people who endorsed it mostly aren't climatologists and all of them are denialists. In fact, it was published on the web site of one of the authors. That's your idea of credibility? One author, Joseph D'Aleo claims to have a doctorate but it turns out to be only an honorary doctorate. Another one, Craig Idso, was the director of environmental energy at Peabody, a coal mining company. Here's a few links to fact checks on this ridiculous report: https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers This is the best you've got?
  9. Communist? If he's a Communist then so are the governments of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. When Sanders starts talking about a total government takeover of the private sector, get back to us. Until then, your characterization is nonsense.
  10. A dubious assertion since it disregards the obvious truth that Trump is a great motivator for getting out the vote of voters who are pro-Trump and anti-Trump. In addition it disregards the fact that Sanders support of a single payer system is not popular. Roughly half of Americans get their insurance via their employers. And most are reasonably satisfied. Lots of them aren't going to be happy about being forced into that program particularly since the rollout of Obamacare was so flawed. It's true that Medicare for all has no chance of passage since lots of Democrats recognize it for the electoral suicide it it. If Sanders changes his stance and gives voters the option of joining Medicare his chances will improve markedly.
  11. Nonsense. In fact, even back in the 70, the majority of literature on the subject favored warming: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus "Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf And how desperate do you have to be to use a movie to support your case? Do you understand that this movie was fictional and the words spoken were the invention of screenwriters?
  12. Can you share with us a link to those peer-reviewed studies showing that global cooling is occuring? Because according to the NOAA and Copernicus, amongst other, the last 5 years have actually been the warmest on record. And only one of those 5 years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And the decade from 2010 through 2019 was the warmest on record. The second warmest being the previous decade. And only one of those years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And January of 2020 is the warmest January on record. Also, i noticed that your chart of Central England's temperatures ends in 2009. Here's a chart that actually came from the Met office and not from some denialist: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html Looks a bit different, no? In fact for all of the 350 years covered by this graph, you notice how the right side has an unprecedented concentration of above average years starting in the late 70's? I don't see the cooling that you claimed. Doublethink much? And as pointed out earlier, the right y axis in the graph you use only shows emissions of CO2 and leaves out the baseline level of CO2 which is more than 2/3 of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A cheap and stupid trick. In addition, it makes no account for the lag time of temperature increase. Even if greenhouse gases were reduced to a net emission of zero, temperatures would continue to rise for some time.
  13. Well, whoever "mature" is, he certainly isn't you who less than 24 hours ago claimed that sea ice is at a record high level based on a 2014 article. And I doubt a genuine "mature" would engage in creating the kind of childish caricatures that you indulge in doing. And while the the climatological scientific community aren't making any claims for the significance of Antarctic sea ice extent one way or another, there are developments in the Antarctic that are genuinely concerning.
  14. And what makes ludicrously clueless your remarks about the ignorance of others is the fact that you cited an article from 2014 to support your claim that Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high level.
  15. There's 2 things going on in your response: your recitation of certain facts and your invention of fictional persons reactions and scenarios about. The invention part is too sad and too silly to warrant any attention. Clearly this is all about the fact that your contention that Antarctic sea ice was at record levels was refuted and then your retreat slightly to conceding that it was at the second highest level was also refuted as well. In fact, as of January 2020, Antarctic sea ice levels were at their 15 lowest level of the past 40 years. Once again here's the graph from Copernicus showing said fluctuation. https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/ As for them increasing the past few years, so what? We know that Antarctic sea ice levels fluctuate a lot. Are you claiming some kind of rising trend that will continue well into the future?
  16. I guess when you've got nothing to go with, attack the motives of the messenger. The fact is Trump eradicated a whole pandemic infrastructure that was created under Obama. "When Ebola broke out in West Africa in 2014, President Barack Obama recognized that responding to the outbreak overseas, while also protecting Americans at home, involved multiple U.S. government departments and agencies, none of which were speaking to one another. Basically, the U.S. pandemic infrastructure was an enormous orchestra full of talented, egotistical players, each jockeying for solos and fame, refusing to rehearse, and demanding higher salaries—all without a conductor. To bring order and harmony to the chaos, rein in the agency egos, and create a coherent multiagency response overseas and on the homefront, Obama anointed a former vice presidential staffer, Ronald Klain, as a sort of “epidemic czar” inside the White House, clearly stipulated the roles and budgets of various agencies, and placed incident commanders in charge in each Ebola-hit country and inside the United States." https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump-united-states-public-health-emergency-response/ Apparently the problem with this system is that it was created under Obama.
  17. Really? The big problem isn't the technology for exploiting hydrogen. The problem is in sourcing. Where did you think that the vast majority of hydrogen for use as fuel currently comes from? "There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30%, 18% and 4% of the world's hydrogen production respectively.[6] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.[7] Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas with a 70-85% efficiency for hydrogen production and from other hydrocarbons to varying degrees of efficiency." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production Lately, great progress has been made in increasing the efficiency of hydrogen generation via electrolysis. The ultimate goal would be to generate hydrogen using excess solar and wind power. In effect, storing solar and wind energy, But it's not there yet.
  18. This is just plain nuts. Do you understand that there is a record in this thread of exactly what you wrote about this? Here's what you wrote first: "Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years." I pointed out that the graph you included with that comment actually contradicted your claim. I also included an article that showed sea ice had declined dramatically from 2014-2017. You countered with this: "It's not declining dramatically. The data shows that the volume of sea ice is increasing. From 2014 the levels declined? Here's from NSIDC 2014:" . In my reply I pointed out that the article you linked to dated from 2014 so how could it possibly disprove what I wrote. I also included an article about how the extent of Antarctic Sea Ice had rapidly declined from its record levels. Your reply" "I say it WAS declining. It's not declining anymore - it's increasing. 2018 and 2019 levels are higher than the years 2012-2017." This is also false since 2014 was actually the year of the highest recorded level of Antarctic sea ice extent ever. Ever. You even included a graph which once again contradicted your assertion. I didn't bother with that at the time. Your reply: "So it is not the highest level in the 30-40 years, it is the second highest (the only exception being 2014)...?" I replied with data and a graph from Copernicus showing that that sea ice extent at its highest point in the latest cycle was the 15th lowest out of the last 40 years. ANd here was your genuinely confused reply to that: "And....THERE you switched from discussing the current conditions, subject of the discussion, and instead decided to bring the data for September into scope." The reason I included September is that it is generally the month where the Antarctic sea ice extent is greatest. And since you were claiming either first or second place for 2019 that showed you were wrong. But to humor you, I did find a source that showed that latest figures on sea ice extent which is January 2020. Ya know, as current as can be. And according to that, January was below the average in sea ice extent. What makes your comment particularly ludicrous is that you earlier cited a report dating from 2014 as evidence to support your case. And your complaining about what's current? You followed it up with this: "But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair." But this in no way contradicts this: "By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average." Below average. What does below average mean to you? And as for your original paranoid claim about the NSIDC not offering comparisons of earlier years on its charts... So what? With practically no digging I found this. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent It's from the NOAA. And it doesn't really buttress your case about 2018 and 2019 being higher than anytime from 2012 to 2017, does it? In fact, it disproves it. In fact, even the graph you just produced shows sea ice extent for 2020 being somewhat below the median. You know 15 from the bottom out of the last 40 years.
  19. It depends on who is getting taxed. Consumption taxes like VAT fall most heavily on the poor and middle class. Given the Tories' predilection for giving tax breaks to the rich, it seems more likely that a rise in VAT will be imposed. But that's just a guess. Edit: I just noticed NigelGarvie said it a lot better in post #13 above.
  20. Paris Accords are strictly voluntary. There is no enforcement mechanism. So no one is being forced to do anything. No one, including Sanders, has said, to turn the tap off immediately on petroleum production. What is proposed is a building a smart grid and investing heavily in renewable R&D to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP. As the IMF reports, in 2017 the US economy subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of something like 645 billion dollars. As for Sanders threats to prosecute oil industry executives. He proposed it because as we now know, Exxon, for one, conducted very extensive research into the dangers of CO2-caused global warming and scientists pointed out the dangers of increased CO2 levels long ago to its executives.. Not only did Exxon ultimately ignore them, but it subsidized organizations such as the Heartland Institute (the same institute that used to be in the pay of Big Tobacco) to promote denialism. Whether there is a legally sustainable criminal case to be made against oil company executives, I don't know. What I do know is that the US Supreme Court refused Exxon's attempts to block the Massachusetts AG's investigation of Exxon. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey
  21. I cited September because that's generally the month where the period of maximum sea ice extent occurs for the Antarctic. Occasionally it's October. You claimed first that sea ice extent was at record levels, then you claimed it was #2. Anyway, if it's current conditions you want, the closest I can come is for January 2020. This is from the report: "By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average. January is the month of the second largest seasonal ice loss, behind December, as the Antarctic extent approaches its annual minimum, usually in February." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ "below average" doesn't exactly jibe with anything close to record setting, does it? Or are you claiming that data you possess from February readings is going to show something vastly different? Got some data to share with us? Give it up already. You're wrong. Live with it.
  22. And as the IMF has reported, about 6 percent of global GDP goes toward subsidizing fossil fuels.
  23. False. Antarctic sea ice extent reached 18.2 million km2 on average in September 2019, which was 0.2 million km2 (or about 0.9%) below the 1981-2010 average for September. Even though many of the months leading up to September 2019 have shown large negative sea ice anomalies overall, the September 2019 sea ice extent is relatively close to average, ranking 15th lowest in our 41-year record. September is usually the month when Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its annual maximum extent. https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/ And just in case you're wondering, no miraculous surge of sea ice extent occurred later to make 2019 #2. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
×
×
  • Create New...