Discussion:
Report: Asia facing dire future toll from climate change
Add Reply
Unum
2017-07-16 18:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-asia-facing-dire-future-toll-climate-change-48629665

A report by the Asia Development Bank says Asia will endure extreme heat,
rising sea levels, growing losses from severe weather and increasing food
insecurity in coming decades as climate change raises temperatures and alters
weather patterns across the globe.

The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C (42.8 F)
by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed. India suffered heat waves in 2015
and 2016 with temperatures at times around 50 C (122 F). When temperatures
stay above 35 C (95 F) for extended periods of time, both people and animals
are at risk of heat stroke.

Sea levels rose about 19 centimeters (7 inches) globally over the past
century and are forecast to rise by about 2.3 meters (7 feet) for every
degree Celsius of global warming as glaciers and ice caps melt, the report
says, citing past climate observations.
7
2017-07-16 22:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
A report by the Asia Development Bank says Asia will endure extreme heat,
rising sea levels, growing losses from severe weather and increasing food
insecurity in coming decades as climate change raises temperatures and
alters weather patterns across the globe.
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/


Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!

As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.

Climate is changing every hour!

Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.

Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?




Amrikkkan fsckwit researchers and NASA glow ball wamming trolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

None of the organizations mentioned from NASA to these below:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

have seen Hanson's fake data used to fabricate
glow ball wamming - so if they did not see
Hanson's data, these Amerikkkan institutes are fakers
without seeing any data from Hanson troll to back them up.

The judge wanted to see it:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

But the fcktard refused claiming it is personal intellectual property.

There is no such thing as personal intellectual property
when science is funded by the public purse, and
at the very least it is dishonest to take such a position,
which means all the *FSCKING* AMERIKKKAN institutes
who supported Hanson have *NEVER* seen Hanson's data
and fraudulently support fake science which they
themselves have not peer reviewed!!!!!

What a fscking result for Amrikkkan fraud science
and the glow ball wamming meme!!

Glow ball wammers are desperate to keep their meme alive
so they then engage in utterly stuupppidd malpractice
to deceive the public.


How glow ball wamming fraudsters use malpractice to adjust data
---------------------------------------------------------------

There two patterns that glow ball wammers and their
data fiddle methods follow.

It has been repeated enough to be noticed.

1. First part of the fraud is to
adjust older data to make it appear cooler
and then draw the graph. Recent data is left
untouched otherwise you will spot the fraud.
So when the graph is plotted, every years is
now the hottest year on record.

The utter fscking asssholes!!

2. The second part of the fiddle is to claim that
the data they used is personal intellectual
data and cannot be revealed
which may wash in Amerikkka, but it is
fraud in any other country, particularly if
the research is paid for by the tax payer.

Hiding your fraudulent data converts all Amerikkkan
researchers into fraudsters and they should not
be allowed to publish whilst they claim all
their fraudulent data is personal intellectual
data - because it has not been peer reviewed.

A professional scientific peer review process
relies on reviewing the data for checks and balances,
like an accountant relies on the books to check
sample invoices to match up numbers to detect fraud.

So any scientific peer reviewed publisher
is now obligated to check the original data, and
if there has been a fiddle, decline publishing,
and if the data is being withheld, then the
publisher MUST indicate that the data has been
withheld, the reason must be given, and offer
to publish with caveat to the readers that the
entire data set has NOT BEEN CHECKED, so that that
paper did not pass the usual quality checks
needed to be a work of scientific merit that has
been fully peer reviewed.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-17 05:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in climate
science, as proves this cite from Steve McIntyre:

"As to the issue of choosing series ex post, this has been a longstanding
concern, originating with my first encounter with Jacoby and D’Arrigo,
discussed in one of the earliest Climate Audit posts in Feb 2005 here
https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/06/jacoby-1-a-few-good-series/. Jacoby
and D’Arrigo had collected data from 36 northern sites, from which they
selected the 10 “most temperature sensitive”. They purported to test for
statistical significance but did not test the effect of selecting 10 of
36 series.

Jacoby and D’Arrigo archived data for the 10 series that they used, but
refused to provide me with data for the other 26 series when I requested
it.

In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In
my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to
provide me as a critic. Schneider said that no reviewer had ever asked
for data in 28 years of running the journal. I was unimpressed with this
precedent and re-iterated my request. Schneider said that he’d have to
consult with his editorial board to establish a policy; I said fine.
Ulitmately they agreed that authors would have to provide data. Mann
continued to refuse and abandoned the article.

Under the new policy, I requested data for the other 26 series for JAcoby
and D’Arrigo, which had been published in Climatic Change. Schneider made
a halfhearted effort to get data from Jacoby, who sent the remarkable
refusal letter replicated in the CA post linked above."
Unum
2017-07-17 22:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any fake
data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in climate
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything. Why
do denialist scum hate Asia so much?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-asia-facing-dire-future-toll-climate-change-48629665

The combination of all the trends above will put heavy demands on scarce
resources at a time when larger numbers of people are migrating to escape
rising sea levels, extreme weather and drought. At the same time, climate-
related disasters are likely to cause economic disruptions across many
regions. "The magnitude of the challenge for the people of the region is
immense, with the livelihoods and welfare of hundreds of millions of people at
stake," the report said.
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-18 00:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any fake
data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in climate
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything. Why
do denialist scum hate Asia so much?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-asia-facing-dire-future-toll-climate-change-48629665
The combination of all the trends above will put heavy demands on scarce
resources at a time when larger numbers of people are migrating to escape
rising sea levels, extreme weather and drought. At the same time, climate-
related disasters are likely to cause economic disruptions across many
regions. "The magnitude of the challenge for the people of the region is
immense, with the livelihoods and welfare of hundreds of millions of people at
stake," the report said.
/D\, the poor old fraud, hasn't updated his conspiracy diary for decades.

These days there are numerous independent sources of data anyone that
can run Excel can upload and check for themselves.

E.g. for India the daily TMAX is given at Berkeley Earth:
<http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TMAX/Text/india-TMAX-Trend.txt>

These data are independent of NASA and NOAA -- after all Muller
started out to try to disprove the trends various other agencies were
finding so et al collected all the data from all the stations that could
be found -- maybe an order of mag more than used by other agencies --
and massaged them in their own way.

All this is documented. All the data is available. All the code is also
available.

From the India TMAX data >= 1950 (the baseline -- where the avg
tmax anom is supposed to be around 0) we can also run a simple TS regression
with an exponential fit and find:

y = 8.03528e-17*exp(0.018468*x)
beta in 0.018468 +- 0.00727087 = [0.0111971, 0.0257389]
P(beta>0.000000) = 0.999916
r2 = 0.391087

Binned data:
Date tmax anom model-est tmax anom
1951.04 0.3786 0.357625
1952.84 0.4626 0.369713
1954.46 0.492333 0.380941
1959.92 0.386 0.421357
1962.5 0.5645 0.44192
1963.54 0.671 0.45049
1966.13 0.335333 0.472561
1967.5 0.188 0.48467**(2sd outlier)
1969.18 0.311 0.499943*(1sd outlier)
1970.46 0.285667 0.511902*
1972.69 0.8105 0.533424*
1974.79 0.238333 0.554519**
1978.38 0.956 0.592529*
1979.79 1.099 0.608161*
1981.46 0.895 0.62721
1983 0.85525 0.645305
1984.38 1.304 0.661962*
1985.38 0.443 0.674301*
1987 0.8585 0.69478
1988.94 0.63875 0.720124
1991.46 0.656 0.75443
1993.08 0.8384 0.777342
1994.38 1.066 0.796231
1995.96 0.732333 0.819806
1998.08 0.798 0.85254
1999.54 0.466 0.87584*
2002.96 0.985667 0.932943
2005 1.2845 0.968762
2009.06 0.8948 1.04419
2010.86 0.922 1.07949
2012.69 1.33875 1.11659

The model says the tmax around 2009 was +1 from the baseline (~1950-1980).

The \beta says the deviation from 0 is 99.99 expected to follow
an exponential with a doubling time of log(2)/0.018468 == 37.5 years.

So 2100 is 91 years after 2009 i.e. 2.43 doublings i.e. an expected
temp of 2^2.42 ~ 5.4C.

I.e. the article cited is so robust that any randomly-selected
data processed in my usual rough as guts way shows the same answer.
--
Housemaids were hurrying homewards with their purchases for various
Gallic breakfasts, and the long sticks of bread, a yard or two in
length, carried under their arms, made an odd impression upon me.
-- Louis Charles Elson, European Reminiscences, Musical and Otherwise:
Being the Recollections of the Vacation Tours of a Musician in
Various Countries, 1896, p. 186
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-18 16:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6
C (42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
Why do denialist scum hate Asia so much?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-asia-facing-dire-
future-toll-climate-change-48629665
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
The combination of all the trends above will put heavy demands on
scarce resources at a time when larger numbers of people are migrating
to escape rising sea levels, extreme weather and drought. At the same
time,
climate-
related disasters are likely to cause economic disruptions across many
regions. "The magnitude of the challenge for the people of the region
is immense, with the livelihoods and welfare of hundreds of millions of
people at stake," the report said.
"In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In
my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to
provide me as a critic."
Post by R Kym Horsell
/D\, the poor old fraud, hasn't updated his conspiracy diary for decades.
Kym Horsell
2017-07-18 16:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6
C (42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
Why do denialist scum hate Asia so much?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-asia-facing-dire-
future-toll-climate-change-48629665
Post by Unum
The combination of all the trends above will put heavy demands on
scarce resources at a time when larger numbers of people are migrating
to escape rising sea levels, extreme weather and drought. At the same
time,
climate-
related disasters are likely to cause economic disruptions across many
regions. "The magnitude of the challenge for the people of the region
is immense, with the livelihoods and welfare of hundreds of millions of
people at stake," the report said.
"In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In
my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to
provide me as a critic."
You poor old fraud. Your "seems to be the rule" seems to be reduced to 1 dubious example.

This year alone there are 144,000 publications in climate change.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-18 17:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kym Horsell
Post by Paul Aubrin
"In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann.
In my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had
refused to provide me as a critic."
You poor old fraud. Your "seems to be the rule" seems to be reduced to 1 dubious example.
This year alone there are 144,000 publications in climate change.
No fraud. The request for data was legitimate and denotes a thorough
style of review.
"In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In
my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to
provide me as a critic."
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-18 16:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
Unum
2017-07-18 19:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
Eric©
2017-07-18 20:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Unum was, like...
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
He was also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.
Unum
2017-07-19 02:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric©
Unum was, like...
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
He was also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.
That's like being able to buy a cup of coffee.

https://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer

“Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn't mean that they asked him to review
material – all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only
real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly
comment on the draft.”
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-18 21:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
I like the part where Muller in an MIT tech review piece 2004 plays
up all the "obvious errors" in the Mann work found by McIntyre et al
but is finally forced to admit McIn and McKi wrote down all their suspicious
about the program Mann et al used for the old hockeystick (nothing
at all to do with the data), submitted it to Nature, and got rejected
and so not bothering to try to find any other publisher (for some reason)
put it on their (vanity) web page.

The *real* hilarious part -- Muller at that time was a firm climate skeptic
but was later forced to retract much of the guff he'd been spouting
up to that point when he got the bright idea to take some Koch money and
and do a "debunking run" over the world's temperature data but got
a surprise when his team could not shake the obvious hockeystick result
that is now for all the world to see on 100s of pages at e.g.:

<http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land>

Mean rate of change (C/cent);

From 1760 .43 +- .18
1810 .79 +- .13
1860 .91 +- .08
1910 1.11 +- .03
1960 2.16 +- .11
1990 2.78 +- .13

Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.

And *this* is the sole basis behind /D\'s lie de jour
"most climate scientists refuse to give up their data".
--
[The Gold Standard:]

You have been stupid enough to write: "If a theory A predicts B and we
observe B then we have evidence the theory is true" and you are telling
me that pointing your error is some sophistry?
-- Paul /D\ubrin <***@free.fr>, 08 Jul 2012 18:36:01 GMT

There is a consensus that A => B and B is true does not imply anything on A.
-- Paul /D\ubrin <***@free.fr>, 08 Jul 2012 12:46:34 GMT

I learned physics and chemistry from quite good masters.
-- Paul /D\ubrin, 14 Oct 2013

[Back in reality town:]

Making successful predictions is the gold standard of science.
If a theory successfully predicts phenomena that are later observed,
one can be confident that the theory captures something essential
about the real world system.
-- Andrew Dessler, testimony to US Senate, 21 Jan 2014
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-18 22:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[/D\ubrins spin on the "hockeystick controversy" ignorning anything after 1999].
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
...
Post by R Kym Horsell
<http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land>
Mean rate of change (C/cent);
From 1760 .43 +- .18
1810 .79 +- .13
1860 .91 +- .08
1910 1.11 +- .03
1960 2.16 +- .11
1990 2.78 +- .13
Here's a nice visual summary of the current state of play given
the publication of 100s of studies (~2000 temperature proxies) for
the past 2000 years:


The Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999) hockeystick:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/
page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg>

A careful weighted average of 100s of published proxy datasets
(i.e. the latest PAGES collection) 0AD-present:

<Loading Image...>

Hockeystick deniers: "D'Oh!!"
gordo
2017-07-18 23:57:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:54:03 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by 7
Post by Unum
The report forecasts that Asian summer temperatures could rise by 6 C
(42.8 F) by 2100 if warming trends are not curbed.
All of it based on fake data that has been withheld from peer review
because USA allows fakers to claim all their data is personal
intellectual property and above scrutiny.
Zero evidence that the Asia Development Bank report was based on any
fake data means the denialist scum lied.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Refusal to provide data for peer reviewer seems to be the rule in
Nobody is under any obligation to provide Steve McIntyre with anything.
In this case, Steve McIntyre was the reviewer and needed those data for
his review. No data, no validation.
McIntyre is a mining industry executive who runs a denialist lieblog.
I like the part where Muller in an MIT tech review piece 2004 plays
up all the "obvious errors" in the Mann work found by McIntyre et al
but is finally forced to admit McIn and McKi wrote down all their suspicious
about the program Mann et al used for the old hockeystick (nothing
at all to do with the data), submitted it to Nature, and got rejected
and so not bothering to try to find any other publisher (for some reason)
put it on their (vanity) web page.
The *real* hilarious part -- Muller at that time was a firm climate skeptic
but was later forced to retract much of the guff he'd been spouting
up to that point when he got the bright idea to take some Koch money and
and do a "debunking run" over the world's temperature data but got
a surprise when his team could not shake the obvious hockeystick result
Hillbillies even live in France . Who would have been aware of this
fact. Paul you keep trying .
Post by R Kym Horsell
<http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land>
Mean rate of change (C/cent);
From 1760 .43 +- .18
1810 .79 +- .13
1860 .91 +- .08
1910 1.11 +- .03
1960 2.16 +- .11
1990 2.78 +- .13
Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.
And *this* is the sole basis behind /D\'s lie de jour
"most climate scientists refuse to give up their data".
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-19 00:12:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gordo
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:54:03 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
...
Post by gordo
Post by R Kym Horsell
The *real* hilarious part -- Muller at that time was a firm climate skeptic
but was later forced to retract much of the guff he'd been spouting
up to that point when he got the bright idea to take some Koch money and
and do a "debunking run" over the world's temperature data but got
a surprise when his team could not shake the obvious hockeystick result
Hillbillies even live in France . Who would have been aware of this
fact. Paul you keep trying .
...

Yar. Dat innernet thin is great like that.
--
[Flat is as flat does:]

Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR
and not one accurately predicted that the Earth's temperature would
remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996.
-- CNSNews.com "correcting liberal bias in the media since 1998", 30 Sep 2013.

<http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:30/from:1990/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/from:1990>
Catoni
2017-07-17 09:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Unum" posted:

"When temperatures
stay above 35 C (95 F) for extended periods of time, both people and animals
are at risk of heat stroke. "


Define: ""extended periods of time"


"Sea levels rose about 19 centimeters (7 inches) globally over the past
century and are forecast to rise by about 2.3 meters (7 feet) for every
degree Celsius of global warming as glaciers and ice caps melt, the report
says, citing past climate observations."


Since the beginning of the end of the last Glacial Period...the sea level at first rose swiftly... and has since slowed down....

There is now much much less ice available to add to sea level rise as there used to be.

Experiment: Take one of your kitchen bowls and fill with ice cubes....

Observe melting and speed of water level rise.

Notice how only the earliest melting results in "fast" water level rise....(like the first eight thousand year of Glacial Period retreat)

When there is much less ice to melt.... water level rises slower and slower.

There is much...much....much less ice today than there was 22,000 years ago....
Catoni
2017-07-19 02:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Unum" posted:

"When temperatures
stay above 35 C (95 F) for extended periods of time, both people and animals
are at risk of heat stroke. "


Define: ""extended periods of time"


"Sea levels rose about 19 centimeters (7 inches) globally over the past
century and are forecast to rise by about 2.3 meters (7 feet) for every
degree Celsius of global warming as glaciers and ice caps melt, the report
says, citing past climate observations."


Since the beginning of the end of the last Glacial Period...the sea level at first rose swiftly... and has since slowed down....

There is now much much less ice available to add to sea level rise as there used to be.

Experiment: Take one of your kitchen bowls and fill with ice cubes....

Observe melting and speed of water level rise.

Notice how only the earliest melting results in "fast" water level rise....(like the first eight thousand year of Glacial Period retreat)

When there is much less ice to melt.... water level rises slower and slower.

There is much...much....much less ice today than there was 22,000 years ago....
Loading...