Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How you have a increase in temperature and a decrease of activity?
Certainly it makes sense.....It is an increase in greenhouse gases that are trapping more heat from the sun causing warming, not the sun itself...The sun's output is easily measured, and it is cooling.
Below is an example of the green house effect that anyone can observe..
Sun light travels from the sun in the visible part of the spectrum (i.e. we can see it!) and strikes the inside surface of a car. The sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the car (say the dashboard and the carpet) and since radiation is energy, the absorption of the visible radiation causes the surface that is struck to heat up....
Then the carpet RE RADIATES the absorbed visible (short wave length) energy in the IR (long wave length) part of the spectrum. Long wave radiation cannot pass easily through the glass windows, so the interior of the car heats up. A closed car in the sun at 73 degrees will heat up to 100 degrees in 25 minutes....
And a scientific theory is 'higher' than a law. A law just describes something, whereas a scientific theory is an explanation of the facts, evidence, laws etc.
Say what? I wouldn't consider a theory to be higher than a law. A law is a law and a theory is a theory.
I have nothing against climate-change theory, but we need to keep in mind theories haven't always turned out to be true. And I'm not just talking questionable theories such as cold fusion or "tabula rasa". I'm saying, there are many theories which have been almost universally accepted as fact, that would later be proved wrong.
Thus, I have to admit, I despise anyone telling me that "since a strong majority of scientists are saying something, it must be true". If there is any credible doubt whatsoever to a theory, then it simply isn't "settled science".
Now, I am not saying the evidence isn't "compelling" for climate-change. I think the most reasonable position on climate-change is "humans must be contributing something". But I find the predictions to be completely illogical, and none of the projections have come anywhere close to reality. Yet, every time the IPCC projections have been wrong. Do they backtrack? No, each time the predictions keep getting more and more dire.
If we look back, they said the Earth wasn't just going to warm, but that the warming was going to accelerate. The Earth has effectively stopped warming.
Then they said sea-level rise not only would continue, but would accelerate. The last decade of sea-level rise has been about 30% slower than the previous decade.
They said we would have more hurricanes. We have had fewer.
They said we would have more severe weather. We have had less.
The list really goes on and on.
But do they back away and make more reasonable predictions? No, not only do they keep making more dire predictions, but they claim they are even more certain this time around.
It boggles my mind how anyone would take the IPCC seriously.
Look at it like this, if you had to bet every dollar you would make for the rest of your life on which "climate model" is the most likely to reflect future climate-change. Which one would you put your money on?
Let me explain it like this, if current sea-level rise is somewhere between 2.4mm and 3.3mm per year. Then sea-level rise at current rates should be between 206 mm and 283 mm by 2100(about 8-11 inches by 2100). The IPCC is predicting as "most likely" a sea-level rise by 2100 of about 700 mm to 1200 mm. Which is about 3.5 to 6 times the rate of the last decade.
The sort of "doomsday" sea-level rise is 2000 mm(nearly ten times the rate of the current decade).
The argument is that sea-level rise will accelerate over time. But if you understand the "exponential increase" that would be required to go from 206 mm to 2000 mm in the course of 86 years. The first year might start at 2.4 mm, but each year would need to increase about 8.04% over the previous year. That means if we were to imagine sea-level rise as a curve, then to get 2000 mm of sea-level rise in 86 years starting from 2.4 mm, the final year would require a sea-level rise of about 150 mm(about 60 times the current rate).
So, lets just put the sea-level predictions in ten blocks of 200 mm going 0 mm to 2000 mm. Where would you place your money? I would put my money that by 2100, the sea-level will rise between 200-400 mm, it seems to be by far the safest bet.
I would love to hear a Vegas oddsmaker weigh in on climate-change. But something that far into the future would be too difficult to set up bets for. And without actual bets, I don't know how that would work.
It is always nice to throw out random ridiculous predictions when your own money isn't on the line.
Which is what bothers me so much about the IPCC. They have been not only wrong, but extremely wrong every single time, but does being wrong have any consequences whatsoever? The answer is NO. Not only are there no consequences for being wrong. But there are actually benefits to being wrong. The more ridiculous your stance on climate-change, the more likely you'll get government grants to continue doing your research.
Start firing climate scientists and publicly embarrassing them for making wrong predictions, and maybe they will start acting more reasonably.
Say what? I wouldn't consider a theory to be higher than a law. A law is a law and a theory is a theory.
I have nothing against climate-change theory, but we need to keep in mind theories haven't always turned out to be true. And I'm not just talking questionable theories such as cold fusion or "tabula rasa". I'm saying, there are many theories which have been almost universally accepted as fact, that would later be proved wrong.
Thus, I have to admit, I despise anyone telling me that "since a strong majority of scientists are saying something, it must be true". If there is any credible doubt whatsoever to a theory, then it simply isn't "settled science".
Now, I am not saying the evidence isn't "compelling" for climate-change. I think the most reasonable position on climate-change is "humans must be contributing something". But I find the predictions to be completely illogical, and none of the projections have come anywhere close to reality. Yet, every time the IPCC projections have been wrong. Do they backtrack? No, each time the predictions keep getting more and more dire.
If we look back, they said the Earth wasn't just going to warm, but that the warming was going to accelerate. The Earth has effectively stopped warming.
Then they said sea-level rise not only would continue, but would accelerate. The last decade of sea-level rise has been about 30% slower than the previous decade.
They said we would have more hurricanes. We have had fewer.
They said we would have more severe weather. We have had less.
The list really goes on and on.
But do they back away and make more reasonable predictions? No, not only do they keep making more dire predictions, but they claim they are even more certain this time around.
It boggles my mind how anyone would take the IPCC seriously.
Look at it like this, if you had to bet every dollar you would make for the rest of your life on which "climate model" is the most likely to reflect future climate-change. Which one would you put your money on?
Let me explain it like this, if current sea-level rise is somewhere between 2.4mm and 3.3mm per year. Then sea-level rise at current rates should be between 206 mm and 283 mm by 2100(about 8-11 inches by 2100). The IPCC is predicting as "most likely" a sea-level rise by 2100 of about 700 mm to 1200 mm. Which is about 3.5 to 6 times the rate of the last decade.
The sort of "doomsday" sea-level rise is 2000 mm(nearly ten times the rate of the current decade).
The argument is that sea-level rise will accelerate over time. But if you understand the "exponential increase" that would be required to go from 206 mm to 2000 mm in the course of 86 years. The first year might start at 2.4 mm, but each year would need to increase about 8.04% over the previous year. That means if we were to imagine sea-level rise as a curve, then to get 2000 mm of sea-level rise in 86 years starting from 2.4 mm, the final year would require a sea-level rise of about 150 mm(about 60 times the current rate).
So, lets just put the sea-level predictions in ten blocks of 200 mm going 0 mm to 2000 mm. Where would you place your money? I would put my money that by 2100, the sea-level will rise between 200-400 mm, it seems to be by far the safest bet.
I would love to hear a Vegas oddsmaker weigh in on climate-change. But something that far into the future would be too difficult to set up bets for. And without actual bets, I don't know how that would work.
It is always nice to throw out random ridiculous predictions when your own money isn't on the line.
Which is what bothers me so much about the IPCC. They have been not only wrong, but extremely wrong every single time, but does being wrong have any consequences whatsoever? The answer is NO. Not only are there no consequences for being wrong. But there are actually benefits to being wrong. The more ridiculous your stance on climate-change, the more likely you'll get government grants to continue doing your research.
Start firing climate scientists and publicly embarrassing them for making wrong predictions, and maybe they will start acting more reasonably.
One of the most vulnerable regions to climate change is the Asia-Pacific, especially for its low-lying coastal areas and island states. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), tells DW that hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to climate change by 2100 unless the international community takes decisive action. Asia under 'increasing threat' from climate change | Asia | DW.DE | 06.06.2014
really??? and just what ""action"" should we do
we could stop using any and all fossil / carbon fuels (to include wood, coal) and it would not change a thing
should you kill 70% of the worlds population??? we have 7 billion people breathing and farting contributing to the co2/methane
No more than I can fight ignorance, but fortunately ignorance always loses in the end.
Keep yelling at the top of your voice. The only thing the other 6.7 billion people on the planet hears is you telling them they don't get to have the same lifestyle as you get to have because you want to strangle their energy production and use. After all, energy is required to move people from a subsistence lifestyle to one where they get to actually enjoy the things you take for granted. Why do you think their only proposal to following your demands is you handing over trillions upon trillions of your wealth?
Increased water vapor creates a positive feedback loop, yet there has never been a runaway greenhouse effect caused by water vapor.
Water vapor is never taken into account by the global warming puter models. It is all scientific BS. Some buy it..........well many buy it..............I have common sense and don't buy the nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
