Jump to content
BANGKOK

pkspeaker

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,096 Excellent

About pkspeaker

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

13,606 profile views
  1. Your appeals to authority aside. You put up a picture from climate.gov: GREENLAND ICE LOSS Billion Tons per Year 1992-2001: 34 2012-2016: 247 that sound pretty bad, like there must have been some dramatic shift in the climate, a tipping point, we must only have 11 years like Greta Thunberg tells us; But the surface mass data from the DMI shows nothing unusual, and actually from the previous version of the surface mass chart the years 13-17 showed an increase in the rate of surface mass gain. The dramatic increase in ice losses was just the ice calving into the sea as the surface mass constantly increases, it's not because of melting, the melt season in Greenland is very short as temps all over it are usually below 0*. Scientists may use imprecise methods like GRACE (Gravity Recovery Climate Experiment) to measure mass losses as well. If the surface mass gains were accelerating than the calving could be accelerating as well (ice & snow piles up, it falls off the island into the sea), or ice is finally calving from previous times of increase rates of ice accumulation, depending on how the glaciers are flowing. The picture from climate.gov is misleading and it's 'authority' orgs like that that you appeal to..
  2. The info I posted is from NOAA and we know how you feel about them. there is the NOAA's actual data and then there is the agencys agenda. The ice losses in Greenland (from your picture) are not from ice melting, it's from ice calving into the sea. There is more mass gain than there is loss and there is no dramatic recent shift in gains vs losses. also whats not seen in the below graph is 13-17 .. that's because the line was higher than avg.. so lets skip that one and just show 18-19 vs 11-12 lol
  3. So both the US and elsalvador have area's that are high crime and gangs. They both have safer area's as well. Impoverished migrants usually live in the high crime area's whether they are in the US or at home. The US is no disneyland with it's 15000 homicides a year. HRW didn't provide a list of the ones that got killed in the US after immigrating. Crime is not like a war where entire towns flee an approaching army or an insurgent takeover of their neighborhoods.. in those cases legitimate refugees usually flee toward a neighboring country and refugee camps are setup near the border. To start claiming 'crime' (or even 'climate! now we're hearing about climate regugees!) is getting absurd. There are hundreds of millions of people south of the US border living in area's where there is high crime; Arey the all supposed to come in caravans barging in.. and if their stopped, its a HR violation? I lived in LongB CA in the 90's. I would hear about alot of murders in area's very close to where i lived, and gang wars in the news everyday. Then we had the riots because the police abuse people or even kill them illegally; BUT there are/were places in the world which are much safer.. Does that mean that anyone living in innercity LA area's can seek 'asylum' in any of those places?
  4. one other thing thaicurious.. That picture you posted (above) that claims 34 billion tons of ice loss 1992-2001 and then 247 billoin tons recently in Greenland... They used a GRACE (Gravity Recovery&Climate Experiment) satellite to estimate those losses.. something that attempts to measure differences in gravity in different zones of the earth (its not reliable or precise) and those losses are from the calving of ice into the water. If you look at the DMI Greenland has an increasing surface mass - which means the ice sheet is actually getting bigger, not smaller.. its not warm enough way up there most of the year (the melt season is only about a month and only in parts of greenland) for ice to melt, most of the time it is well below 0* up there.
  5. But you don't say 'how' he is misusing the data. He illustrated with pictures that there are unreliable tide gauges out there because they were placed on a heavy structure that was built on soft earth; He also shows graphs from the NSIDC & DMI to show that this massive ice loss isn't really there, despite what many published 'studies' are claiming. Then you yourself put up a link that confirmed sea level rise is no more than 3mm a year after claiming that sea level rise in the last 20 or 40 years was visually noticeable, something not just debunked by by the data but by photos taken in the 1800's & now. and you didn't address why The Washington Post claims there are no hurricanes and Yale claims there are too many or that they are getting too powerful.
  6. wait wait wait... substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. Are there more cat 4 &5s or not? Why is it worded that way? .. below link (i'm giving you the MSM this time since you don't like Tony Hellers videos that contain unreliable things like the actual NOAA sea level data) it says that there are almost NO hurricanes.. and that's 'terrifying'! Which is it? So hurricanes are worse and that's alarming, but there are actually no hurricanes and that's terrifying .. there has to be this perfect medium of hurricanes.. but in the 1800's and early 1900's there were times where there were many hurricanes and times when there were not and back then it was just the weather.. I personally remember around 2003 there were alot of hurricanes hitting florida, one after the other, and then came Katrina.. so what? there were alot of hurricanes-the world didn't end. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/08/04/the-u-s-coast-is-in-an-unprecedented-hurricane-drought-why-this-is-terrifying/?noredirect=on
  7. There isn't more extreme huricanes, the number of cat 4 & 5 is currently low, 20 years ago there were alot of hurricanes and previous to that not so much previous to that more.. the skeptic blogs already debunked the notion that there are currently more and more extreme huricanes.. LOL AND if the temps are WARM, then why is there SNOW?.. last i checked it had to be below 0 for snow to form.. sure more rain with warmer temps makes sense but more snow?? and the snow is reaching further south than it used to, Houston Texas, the Sahara desert, Taiwan, Vietnam all recently had most or first snow in the last 10 years
  8. Things like more snow (when they said there would be no snow) and the fact that growing degree days in the US are dramatically down(that means cold) and the fact that it is still cold in the north of Thailand now and that even this morning I get up and there is nice cool air in bangkok on Feb 10 when it's usually very very hot by now.. all of that matteres and take a real look at US temps: a 'warming planet' is one thing, but a runaway greenhouse effect is another.. if there is really this super heating of the planet going on and after 40 years of them saying its happeneing.. this is the 'hot planet' we got? with snowstorms covering most of the US in september this year?? There is no runaway greenhouse effect or rapid climate warming. There is no rapid sea level rise and there is no massive ice loss
  9. OK fine, then trust the un-named scientists at NASA & the NOAA-they are telling you that the rate of sea level rise is no more than 4mm, at the most it's 3.2mm a year but what that random guy was saying in the youtube video (who used to work at the NOAA btw, when he wasn't debugging the PowerPC) is that alot of these the tide guages are placed on concrete and steel structures and over time they will sink, sowhen 'scientists' with an agenda claim that the rate of sea level rise has increased from 2mm year to 4 they are actually just using a selection of tide guages and in they can also use data from satelite altimiters and recently they had scientific papers to adjust from that (one claimed that the sea floor was sinking) the reality is there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise from the 1800's, it's about 2mm / year 1 mm is the width of a small ant, not even one of the big ants, and not the length of the ant, the width.. the ripple in a swimming pool w/o people in it is about 1cm... the daily tides are several feet every day or more if there are king tides and you people think there shoud be 'alarm' if sea level changes by a few mm a year..
×
×
  • Create New...