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.
Aren't you forgetting something important? 'Greenhouse' gas levels.
The gradient of Earth's atmosphere is not a plastic-lidded terrarium.
And there are also other cosmic interactions at layers of the atmosphere that aren't found in a lab room or in a glass vestibule at the bottom of the troposphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
And what seems to be most important to some people on this forum - Alley is a Republican.
It's only important to progressive leftists eager to politicize dissent.
And may I remind you that your models are always wrong?
Climate models have never been accurate. If you had a climate model that worked, then so-called 'climate scientists' would be able to inform the forum how long the Western U.S.'s drought will last.
They can't. Because it's a charade.
They're as dumbfounded as everyone else. Pretending ends when you mature. These people are still pretending, but the difference is they're getting big bucks by economy-consolidating globalists and climate derivatives-selling banks for housing and conferences to keep the pretense up.
Some media sources are not even remotely accurate about science. I don't know why some people automatically believe them without doing any fact-checking.
"Accurate"?
In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference.
And a Ring of Fire and a Mid-Atlantic Ridge that opens up here, closes there, spitting fire, shutting it off, without terrestrial observers ever being the wiser. Changes in convection as the poles shift....
(What's that? East Anglia doesn't know how to model any of that, which explains why their laughable models are always wrong?)
That's a very strong claim with no evidence. You seem to be just spouting off. Please link to an example of "East Anglia" (I assume you mean the University of East Anglia CRU) climate models showing past sea level rise as well as projections of future sea level rise to show how their "laughable models are always wrong".
The earth is not a closed system like a greenhouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevCommunete
And there are also other cosmic interactions at layers of the atmosphere that aren't found in a lab room or in a glass vestibule at the bottom of the troposphere.
Cosmic interactions? Please explain what you mean. Do you mean Svensmark's long refuted hypothesis that cosmic radiation seeds clouds and hence causes global warming? Or something else? Are you really unware that scientists use satellites and radiosondes to study the atmosphere? Do you know anything at all about the physics of radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere? The airforce did- that's why they were able to build jets and accurate heat seeking missiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevCommunete
It's only important to progressive leftists eager to politicize dissent.
I'm not interested in silly partisan politics games. I'll stick to the science thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevCommunete
And may I remind you that your models are always wrong?
They aren't my models as I'm not a climate modeller. But of course models are always wrong. They are models, not reality. The GCM models are built to reflect long term trends, not weather/natural variability over short term periods. They are constantly being refined and tested by how accurately they can hindcast the trends and most have been doing a pretty good job. The main areas of uncertainly still left are clouds (and there have been a lot of recent studies on this differentiating between different types of clouds) and aerosols.
Three feet is 914.4 mm.... Divided by 85 years = 10.75 mm per year....Personally I think sea levels will rise faster than that.
During the last interglacial—a warm period between ice ages 125,000 years ago—global average temperatures similar to today led to a sea level rise of 6-9 metres, caused by melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, according to new research published in Science Journal.
This means “the agreement to keep global average temperature (rise) below 2°C… carries substantial risk of unmanageable sea level rise,” the researchers warned. Global sea levels may rise by over 6 metres: study - India Climate Dialogue
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.
