Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[Forethat]

14 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Any particular area you are interested in @thaibeachlovers? Gulf of Thailand or Andaman Sea?

I can serve this data.

Just to give you some idea of the rise. This is Phrachula Chomklao Fort (Samut Prakan). Note that the rise really kicked off in the 1950's and have been steady since.

 

 

Data source:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/600-041_meantrend.csv

 

The graph below shows the annual sea level rise at Koh Taphao Noi (Phuket).

As you can see it's currently jumping between two and three mm rise per year. The rise is trending at 1.76mm/year for 1940-2019.

 

 

Data source:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/545-001_meantrend.csv

 

[rabas]

40 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Just to give you some idea of the rise. This is Phrachula Chomklao Fort (Samut Prakan). Note that the rise really kicked off in the 1950's and have been steady since.

 

[GRAPH ABOVE]

 

Data source:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/600-041_meantrend.csv

 

The graph below shows the annual sea level rise at Koh Taphao Noi (Phuket).

As you can see it's currently jumping between two and three mm rise per year. The rise is trending at 1.76mm/year for 1940-2019.

 

[GRAPH ABOVE}

 

Data source:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/545-001_meantrend.csv

 

Clearly Global Warming and sea level rise is isolated to Bangkok and surrounding areas.

 

Do you know how those elevations are referenced? Bangkok is loosing similar  elevation due to land subsidence and water extraction. This reference suggests that includes Samut Prakan so maybe the sea is not yet rising. https://www.tcijthai.com/news/2015/09/english/5725.

 

If oceans do not rise substantially as claimed, I wonder if half a billion people can sue for hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost property value.

 

 

 

[Forethat]

20 minutes ago, rabas said:

Clearly Global Warming and sea level rise is isolated to Bangkok and surrounding areas.

 

Do you know how those elevations are referenced? Bangkok is loosing similar  elevation due to land subsidence and water extraction. This reference suggests that includes Samut Prakan so maybe the sea is not yet rising. https://www.tcijthai.com/news/2015/09/english/5725.

 

If oceans do not rise substantially as claimed, I wonder if half a billion people can sue for hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost property value.

 

 

 

The values are relative to the Revised Local Reference (RLR) established by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL). For the Koh Taphao Noi station this is set at 10.232m below primary benchmark BM AS-1/2531.

Here's the GLOSS information for the Koh Taphao Noi station

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.diagrams/446.php

 

[Forethat]

In comparison, this is Ko Lak just outside Prachaup Khiri Khan. Because this is Gulf of Thailand and doesn't report much rise to speak of, your reference (unfortunately I can't get to it yet) could be on to something.

 

 

Data source:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/600-021_meantrend.csv

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

You forget the completeness of the package...but I am enjoying your posts.

 

So let us open the school satchel shall we..and what do we find?

 

Trumpists

Brexiteers

white supremecists

Malthusians and eugenics enthusiasts.

Climate change deniers

General paranoiacs.

A few NRA gun nuts

Mysoginists..

Flat Earthers....

 

Whether "the package"  is better than a peanut butter sandwich and an over ripe banana is not for me to say...????

Specifically, what "school satchel" are you referring to?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

By the way..how is your Malthusian/eugenics campaign going to line up millions of blacks and lead them off to sterilization?

Educate, and employ in a career.

Has worked brilliantly in western countries and Japan.

Coupled with the left's desire for abortion to become legal and on demand ( something I agree with ) a significant drop in fertility could be expected in a few decades

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Forethat said:

Any particular area you are interested in @thaibeachlovers? Gulf of Thailand or Andaman Sea?

I can serve this data.

No need. I'd been going to the Thai beaches for decades and noticed zero significant rise.

My point was more about google not publishing the websites with the relevant data ( or else there is no such data available, in which case it's all a sham anyway ).

[grollies]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

Clearly Global Warming and sea level rise is isolated to Bangkok and surrounding areas.

 

Do you know how those elevations are referenced? Bangkok is loosing similar  elevation due to land subsidence and water extraction. This reference suggests that includes Samut Prakan so maybe the sea is not yet rising. https://www.tcijthai.com/news/2015/09/english/5725.

 

If oceans do not rise substantially as claimed, I wonder if half a billion people can sue for hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost property value.

 

 

 

This is true. Jakarta is in the same predicament. Hence the move to Borneo for the new capital city. No sea level rise as @Forethat graphs show clearly.

[rabas]

9 hours ago, Forethat said:

The values are relative to the Revised Local Reference (RLR) established by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL). For the Koh Taphao Noi station this is set at 10.232m below primary benchmark BM AS-1/2531.

Here's the GLOSS information for the Koh Taphao Noi station

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.diagrams/446.php

 

Thanks, I see they are still using mostly tidal gauges (mareographs) and these are referenced to a nearby point on land. The nearby land point is the 'station'. Down goes the land up goes the sea.

[bristolboy]

On 10/19/2019 at 8:23 AM, rabas said:

 

We are currently in an ice age with worsening periodic freeze ups (glaciations).  Each freeze up drops Earth's already historically low CO₂ levels to the point of death. As things start dying, massive atmospheric dust starts melting the miles deep ice and the cycles continue. They don't call CO₂ the molecule of life for no reason.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

A little bit about the authors of this paper:

Michael Palmer appears to be a research biochemist with a background in pharmacology. 

Ralph Ellis is listed as an independent unaffiliated researcher whose previous work focused on exploring esoteric mysteries. His work appears to generate appreciation among a certain subset of, shall we say, Bible history and Atlantis Theory enthusiasts.

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/48515-co2-had-minimal-effect-on-glacial-interglacial-periods-as-a-greenhouse-gas/

[bristolboy]

Powell, 2013[edit source]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[6][7][8][9] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[10][11][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking...

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t:

The thin red wedge.   

Image credit: James Lawrence Powell

https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/climate-change-denial-why-dont-they-publish-scientific-papers.html

 

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True

 During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Powell, 2013[edit source]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[6][7][8][9] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[10][11][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking...

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t:

The thin red wedge.   

Image credit: James Lawrence Powell

https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/climate-change-denial-why-dont-they-publish-scientific-papers.html

 

 

 

Who has denied the climate is changing?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Who has denied the climate is changing?

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[6][7][8][9]

[bristolboy]

Actually, I posted this for a reason. It's to show how deranged the conspiracy theorists are about some sort of plot to suppress contrary evidence in the climatological community. John Cook is the author of one study that shows 97 percent of climatologist support AGW.  And he's been villified by the denialists ever since. But he pointed out problems with Powell's study. And said Powell's conclusions were too strong.

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

[rabas]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

14 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Who has denied the climate is changing?

 

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[6][7][8][9]

 

Ok, so that answers that question. 24 denied it. I certainly don't.

 

Your reference [6], which is the only one to Powell's survey, is broken at least for me, I'm on Linux.

 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

On 10/19/2019 at 8:23 AM, rabas said:

 

We are currently in an ice age with worsening periodic freeze ups (glaciations).  Each freeze up drops Earth's already historically low CO₂ levels to the point of death. As things start dying, massive atmospheric dust starts melting the miles deep ice and the cycles continue. They don't call CO₂ the molecule of life for no reason.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

A little bit about the authors of this paper:

Michael Palmer appears to be a research biochemist with a background in pharmacology. 

Ralph Ellis is listed as an independent unaffiliated researcher whose previous work focused on exploring esoteric mysteries. His work appears to generate appreciation among a certain subset of, shall we say, Bible history and Atlantis Theory enthusiasts.

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/48515-co2-had-minimal-effect-on-glacial-interglacial-periods-as-a-greenhouse-gas/

What in Sam's Hill does atmospheric dust blown from increasing areas of desertification due to low CO2 subsequently reducing the albedo of glaciated ice at the end of glaciation periods have to do with someone's religious preferences????

 

Kindly present your own ideas to refute an idea rather than trying to insult people, authors, and organizations.

Did you bother to check on the concept in the science literature before you posted? This is just a start:

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2026

https://www.clim-past.net/14/697/2018/cp-14-697-2018.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

https://grimstad.uia.no/puls/climatechange2/nng01/05nng01a.htm

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

What in Sam's Hill does atmospheric dust blown from increasing areas of desertification due to low CO2 subsequently reducing the albedo of glaciated ice at the end of glaciation periods have to do with someone's religious preferences????

 

Kindly present your own ideas to refute an idea rather than trying to insult people, authors, and organizations.

Did you bother to check on the concept in the science literature before you posted? This is just a start:

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2026

https://www.clim-past.net/14/697/2018/cp-14-697-2018.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

https://grimstad.uia.no/puls/climatechange2/nng01/05nng01a.htm

 

The point is it's an outlier idea published by 2 guys one of whom doesn't appear to have any scientific training and appears to be something of a kook, (It's not about his religion but his crazy theorizing)  and the other is a pharmacologist. And it's a speck against all the other scientific literature out there. This isn't cherry picking. This is needle in a haystack picking.

An honest website would let you know what their academic qualifications and standings are.

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Ok, so that answers that question. 24 denied it. I certainly don't.

 

Your reference [6], which is the only one to Powell's survey, is broken at least for me, I'm on Linux.

 

Well you don't reject anthropogenic global warming?

[Scott]

Posts with graphs but no link and replies removed.  

 

[Tug]

Holey cow Greta you certainly started the conversation kudos young lady!!i wonder if this thread holds the record for responses on Thai visa forum!!

[Crazy Alex]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,^[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[6][7][8][9]

That doesn't say people are denying the climate is changing.

[Chomper Higgot]

Australia’s ABC News has brought news of much needed help for some around here:

https://youtu.be/KIP2vukNOPc

 

[kingdong]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Australia’s ABC News has brought news of much needed help for some around here:

https://youtu.be/KIP2vukNOPc

 

What great thunderbird dosen,t know about climate change you could write on the back of a postage stamp.

[grollies]

OK, graphs re-posted with links and bibliography:

 

Title: Building Climate Datasets for Testing Claims of Human Impacts from Climate

 

Source: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2009/110119christy/ndx_christy.pdf.html

 

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987.

 

UAH website: https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-science/faculty-staff/dr-john-christy

 

James Hansen's predictions to the US Senate in 1998 for increases in global temperatures:

 

 

Versus what actually happened:

 

[grollies]

This chart (re-posted with link) is from an article published by the Friends of Science, Calgary, 2014

 

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

It demonstrates the same point that @bristolboy is making. In the same vein that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is not caused by human activity, the graph below shows that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.

 

From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now.

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

On 11/1/2019 at 10:08 PM, DrTuner said:

Ok, so 0.000000000000000001% of climate change is likely to be attributed to humans, and that results in a yes. Should really be 100% yes then.

 

Now, ask 'em if CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.

It seems you don't understand what significant means to scientists. Such a result would be drowned in statistical noise so couldn't be significant. Not surprised that certain parties endorsed such a scientifically illiterate post.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, grollies said:

This chart (re-posted with link) is from an article published by the Friends of Science, Calgary, 2014

 

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

It demonstrates the same point that @bristolboy is making. In the same vein that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity, the graph below shows that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.

 

From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now.

 

 

 

 

As pointed out on page 160, post #2397, the claim in the graph you cite is a lie. I linked directly to a graph from article by Doran, one of the two authors of the study  in the scientific journal EOS. No respondents were ignored.

[grollies]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As pointed out on page 160, post #2397, the claim in the graph you cite is a lie. I linked directly to a graph from article by Doran, one of the two authors of the study  in the scientific journal EOS. No respondents were ignored.

I have already posted a reply on this. The 'survey' has been throughly de-bunked as falsified.

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, grollies said:

This chart (re-posted with link) is from an article published by the Friends of Science, Calgary, 2014

 

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

It demonstrates the same point that @bristolboy is making. In the same vein that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity, the graph below shows that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.

 

From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now.

 

 

 

 

 

"From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now."

 

Hold fire on that 'the only conclusion bit' there are several other conclusions that can be drawn:

 

You somehow think that 'Friendsofscience.org' is a reputable source, you missed the fact that out of 10257 claimed possible respondents, 10180 ignored or otherwise failed to respond (I suspect they know something about 'friendsofscience.org' that you don't).  

 

99.25% of the people that friendsofscience.org claim as possible respondents did not respond, that is an incredible knock back rate.

 

The pie charts (not graphs) do not as you claim  "show(s) that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.", they simply demonstrate that nobody, other than those on the rabid fringes of the internet, take 'friendsofscience.org' seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

[rabas]

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As pointed out on page 160, post #2397, the claim in the graph you cite is a lie. I linked directly to a graph from article by Doran, one of the two authors of the study  in the scientific journal EOS. No respondents were ignored.

[REFERRING TO THE ABOVE GRAPH]

 

In deriving the number 97.4% from 77 people of whom 75 answered yes, 3069 responses were not included, they were ignored.

 

Continually twisting of words, graphs, and data by alarmists is what gives climate science its deserved bad reputation. Biblically unscientific.