Posted on 10/14/2018 7:26:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Somehow, even the Maldives seem to be doing fine here in 2018.
Yes, the Maldives would be an excellent indicator of increased sea level, as the average height above sea level is about 4 feet, and the highest point is about 7 feet above sea level.
And, the Maldives would feel the higher sea levels early, as they are in the equatorial bulge area.
.
I believe you are correct.
I couldn't find my slide rule so I had to guesstimate.
“No, it hasn’t. There isn’t a single scientific source that you can reference that proves any warmer whatsoever. None.”
You’re saying the earth hasn’t warmed since the Little Ice Age?!? Ummm...yes, it has. Otherwise, we would still be in it.
And the LIA coincided with a dearth of sunspots. Like right now.
(Svensmark will win the Nobel Prize eventually.)
It is most definitely warmer now than the LIA, which is what I said. But it’s “paused” over the last 20 years or so. Which, again, is what I said.
And I’m quite familier with the corruption of the HadCRUT series of manipulated datasets, courtesy of East Anglia and CRU. “Hide the decline” emailgate, etc., your smarmy “knowledge of the Oracles” comment notwithstanding.
We’re not talking about since the ice age.
Absolutely, and the closest thing we have are the icecore samples that do go back 350,000 yrs but clearly show the true glacial/interglacial cycle and temps that have repeated themselves like clockwork over the long term.
“We’re not talking about since the ice age.”
Who’s this “We” you’re talking about? My posts sure did. See posts 33 and 34.
Streets and shoes
Avenues
Weather Writers
Selling news
Apologies to JM for the paraphrase.
Let’s try this angle.
Work the problem backwards.
What do the climate “experts” think is the ideal climate for Earth?
How do we get there from here?
What specific actions (negative/positive/time/frequency/duration)are required to achieve the ideal climate?
The answer will be a word salad of PC climate jargon with one clear theme:
“We don’t know how to control the weather or climate to achieve the ideal clinate. Yet somehow we know how to reverse climate change. But if you follow our recommendations and it doesn’t work, it’s not our fault.”
And; it will affect older folks the most!
. They have figured out that it works fine to sign and then never hit a target.
............................................
Funny that the only one to hit the target this year was the US and we were oUT of the Treaty which was designed to tax us to death to the profit of the cheaters. Bless our president for putting a stop to the Rape of America.
Common Core Math Problem.
“Spencer’s site is a fantastic reference source. Thank you.”
You are more than welcome! I wish more people would make an effort to grasp the science. Blanket denial based on nothing is just ignorance.
My main point is that there are solutions that don’t involve a reduced standard of living - I’m absolutely opposed to the wrongheaded idea that we must “sacrifice” in the name of global warming!
Nuclear power is a win/win proposition!
“Watts Up With That (.com)”
Agree. Best place on the net for real climate data and information.
Of all the strategies one might employ to persuade another person on any particular issue, the absolute worst, counterproductive strategy of saying, basically, I’m right, you’re wrong, and there is no reason to have any discussion or debate about it because it’s settled.
And you would think if there were intelligent people who not only believed in global warming, but also in the importance of persuading those who do not so more action can be taken, that they would also be intelligent enough to know how bad an approach that is, and to not only use refrain from using it themselves, but to also reproach any other global warming believers employing that tactic.
So the fact that this approach gets either used and/or tolerated by everyone on the global warming side makes me have even more doubts about their alarmist views, as it makes me also doubt their intelligence.
Therefore, if by some chance they all turn out to be right, and our planet starts dying in a decade or two because of our carbon emissions, then I will not be blaming the deniers for that, I’ll be blaming the believers who put their own egos over the fate of the planet by using such a flawed persuasion strategy whose only benefit is to build up their own self image at the expense of others.
Oh, and I’ve said as much to some alarmists, and it absolutely drives them nuts to hear that!
The mere fact that there are model(s) instead of a single model is evidence nothing is “settled.” If the evidence was definitive, all models would agree completely and there would be no need for more than a single working model.
I'd like to hear one.
The problem is extremism, while it wouldn’t hurt any of us to be more practical, completely going Neolithic is extreme and silly, especially based on a false science and narrative. As a practical person myself I do recognize extremism the other way also, how much stuff and toys does it take to make a person “comfortable”? We don’t have a population problem, we have a “stuff” problem.
But being practical minded I also think that if done right Nuclear power could be very practical. The problem is we keep trying to put all of our eggs in one basket with this technology. Rather than one huge plant that cannot be controlled if there is an issue we need to build numerous smaller plants, each small enough to control if there is an issue.
A small unit the size being used in a modern naval vessel can produce enough to power a city the size of Chicago yet is small enough to be controlled if something happens. And I think we need to seriously invest in more work with cold fusion as a priority.
YUP
More and more, they tacitly admit that it's not about science, it's about their religion, which is socialism.
Science is never settled and arguing that is about the most unscientific thing ever stated.
Correct. An example from history: there is no more "settled science" than Newtonian mechanics was around 1860 or so. Within 25 years, the experiments that it could not explain made it clear that something was seriously wrong with the "settled science". In fact, those experiments couldn't be (correctly) explained at all until Einstein, Schroedinger, and others did it in the early 20th Century.
The whole AGW claim is based on computer models of climate. A computer model is not "science" until it has a fairly impressive track record of predicting results. None of the AGW climate models can claim that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.