To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
@jimglas. Look what I foundhttps://apple.news/Apw5LxGxtRnONSXD9Bo8K_g
Mitch, you need to tell him all about your weather reports and how the climate is not changing and he is just imagining it all. Seriously these guys obviously no nothing and are listening way too much to the current scientists of global warming and all their facts and peer reviewed papers. All Hail Flat Earthers and Climate change Deniers.
Vicente Vargas, 54-years-old, has witnessed the constantly changing sea in the area currently occupied by Ballena Marine National Park. This park is located four hours away from San José, Costa Rica’s capital city.
“Yes, the beach has changed. The shoreline has moved up, more or less,150 meters closer. I know this because when I was nine, I used to go to a shop that was right there (pointing past the national park’s entrance). The owner had to move out because of the sea,” commented the man while carving a hole in a coconut — with a machete — for a tourist thirsty for coconut water.
Nobody disagrees with Vargas, not even José David Palacios, marine biologist and Keto Foundation researcher, a non-governmental organization that has been working in the area since 2009. They only disagree on the number of meters.
“In the ’80s, the National Geographic Institute placed boundary stones to outline the coastal area. Those boundary stones were placed 50 meters into dry land from the high tide line. Boundary stone 55 was planted in 1989 but currently goes underwater during high tide. Using this boundary stone as a reference, we then say that the sea has moved up about one meter per year,” stated Palacios.
@SCC: damn Chinese hoaxers
So leery one, you are pulling that rising sea level crap on me again? Well guess what? COSTA RICA HAS A TIDE GAGUE!
Quepos, Costa Rica is showing a sea level rise at the rate of 0.21 foot per century. But that tide gauge has limited data.
Take a look at Balboa, Panama.
This tide gauge has about 100 years of data. Now, what can you imagine that the Panamanians have that makes them so interested about sea level rise???!!!!
They are showing a 0.48 foot sea level rise over the past century, which is quite representative of the old, stable tide gauges worldwide. Sea level is rising about the rate of 1/2 foot per century. And it isn't accelerating either! Just look at the Panama gauge.
As Dr. John Christy says, "Science is all about numbers." You global warming zealots show opinion articles. I show numbers!
Didn’t Christy have to redo his numbers after pointing out the errors he and his bosom buddy made?
Beach erosion sucks. I’ve seen our local beaches rebuilt with dredging and pumping. Pretty amazing operation. Without it we’d have lost over 200 feet of beachfront, not to be confused with 200 feet of vertical inundation. One good hurricane and bam, there goes the effing beach again.
If NOAA data is to be believed, which I can’t fathom them lying, I think I’m going to go with Mitch on this one. Not that any of my fellow Tesla peeps give a rats ass.
Neomax, it really isn't a case of believing me. It is a simple matter of whether you believe the data or not. I just happen to bring the data that the global warming alarmists don't like to look at. They would much rather read an opinion piece in a magazine they agree with than to actually look at cold, hard climate data!
Hey RedShift, Dr. Christy addresses your weak accusation.
He corrected his data.nomatter how the chrlatan spins it. Improve your general knowledge by reading things other than your usual bubble ‘news’ outlets, old buzzard.
“If NOAA data is to be believed, which I can’t fathom them lying”
They were ordered by their President and his staff to lie.
If NOAA had altered a 100 year old database during the past two years in order to satisfy the administration there would be tens of thousands of scientists with archived copies of the unaltered databases from the Obama years making an enormous stink.
No, the database has not been altered and the mean sea level at those locations has hardly changed. There is another phenomenon at work with the posted page from rxlawdude.
And of course thishttps://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/the-south-atlantic-...
"There is another phenomenon at work with the posted page from rxlawdude."
Which is (and provide cite)?
I don’t know what the phenomenon is. Not my area of expertise.
All I’m saying is that there are areas on this Earth where NOAA says the ocean is not rising appreciably. Then there are areas where NOAA says flooding is more common. How does one reconcile the two?
@Neo: My view of the discrepancy is that flooding represents local conditions: wind, tides, topography of the affected water basins, drainage vs fill, etc. (Thus, will be different with every flooding event). Whereas ocean levels would indicate sustained variances from some accepted norm.
What are your thoughts?
@MitchP85D: We have intelligent (and mathematically gifted) friends:
" "Imagine There Is Man Made Global Warming"
Oh, no! (sniffle)(sniff) Scientists decry the assault on climate science. (sniff) People are being mean to them... (sob) ... and saying mean things about all that fraud and stuff... and ....(sniff) and not telling them they're important all the time... and people are being mean!!!
The problem with blogging is that I don't know you. I don't know if anyone reads this - and that's compounded by the fact that it lives in perpetuity on a Google server somewhere, so that you could conceivably be reading this months after I post it. Because of that, when I title a posting like this one, it's humorously ironic to some people (as intended) and others are going to spray spittle on their monitors and fume about stupid rednecks who don't believe in Global Warming.
To begin with, scientific theories should not be "believed in"; they should be accepted. Or rejected. There is really very little room for belief in science. Belief is, naturally, the province of things for which faith is required.
When it comes to matters of science, I'm a hard ass. I want hard science, I want rock solid data, I want confidence bounds, I want to know the value of p and I want error bars on your plots. I want hard core data. It's simple: put up or shut up. Furthermore, I believe this is the only way for science to succeed. Richard Feynman once noted, "science is about not fooling yourself, and you're the easiest one to fool". Scientists are supposed to be skeptics; to always ask "is that the only explanation for the data" and do their best to kill off their baby theories. If you're a member of the group that would hurl insults against anybody stupid enough to not believe the climate scientists, you are clearly not being skeptical You're "believing" not "accepting".
If you're a believer in anthropogenic global warming, you have to deal with the fact that the majority of weathermen, geologists and paleoclimatologists don't accept it. The largest percentage of people who support AGW are the people who are directly supported by AGW grants. This letter is signed by "255 members of the National Academy of Scientists" When you look at the list of signers, they are not all climate scientists; many are MDs, biologists and other types of scientists. If you are going to consider that sort of petition, then the Petition Project has over 31,000 degreed scientists, including 9000 Ph.D.s - mostly in the physical sciences - who have signed a petition arguing against AGW.
But, you have to understand this: science does not work this way - by voting 31,000 scientists against 255. All of them may be wrong. For science to progress, it is only necessary for one person to be right and for the scientific process to be unhindered. The big problem with the climate modeling is that it ruins the real process of science and harms science in the long run. Anything that harms science harms all of us. The most damning thing in the CRU emails was the deliberate attacks on the peer review system; getting an editor fired, blocking papers from "outsiders". This harms science. Besides - if your case is strong, why would you do that? You only do such things when you're committing fraud.
Long before the CRU emails were leaked by that whistleblower, I was convinced that there was no useful science in AGW. Simply compare the model temperature predictions for the last 20 years to what we've gotten. AGW depends on a lot of very questionable assumptions, not to mention computer code that is laughable. The simplest piece of software that goes into a life critical application, be it a car or a 747, has more rigorous software quality control done on it than the global climate models. A car might cost a few thousand dollars and a couple of lives; a 747 costs millions and could cost hundreds of lives. The global climate models will cost trillions of dollars and cost millions of lives, and yet there is no audit of them at all?
The talk in the CRU emails about "Mann's trick" didn't faze me; nor did "hide the decline". To me, Mann was discredited years ago by McIntyre and McKitrick - and has become pretty well self-discrediting. McIntyre is a financial guy who was amazed that the climate modelers were not held to the same standards that his simplest financial programs were held to. His web site is named for the idea that climate models that will cost trillions of dollars should be held to the same standards that a few thousand dollars worth of stock analysis will.
The letter contains some horrible statements. Take this one:
When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
This is clearly assuming that anything we do to counter warming has no costs or risks at all! There is not a single reason on earth to think that there is no risk associated with the actions they advocate. Any sane person would do some sort of risk-benefit analysis. They follow that horribly sloppy thinking with this mess:
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
I think the advertising term for this is linkage. They are trying to link the idea in your mind that man-made climate change is as well backed by evidence as the standard models of cosmology. No, it's not; first off, there are literally thousands of cross-correlated measurements that support standard cosmology; and second, cosmology is based on theoretical physical modeling that is then compared to observation. AGW is based on computer simulations that don't match reality very well at all. The letter writers are also trying to equate anyone who disagrees with man-made climate change with those "Fundamentalist Christian Nut-jobs" who disagree with these theories.
The letter has no redeeming value. It's a waste of time to read.
As Lord Monckton says, "we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong."
Which brings me to the title point of this essay: in spite of the thousands of reasons to dismiss it, imagine there really was manmade global warming. A set of reasonable questions seem to come up almost naturally: how big is the effect? Is it bad? Can we do anything to change it? Should we try? What would it cost?
In a pretty nifty piece of do-it-yourself science, World Climate Report determined the amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature of the globe 1C. It takes ~14,138 million metric tons (mmt) of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global
temperature ~1ºC. So multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.
That's our magic number-1,767,250 million metric tons of CO2 per ºC. To the precision we know such things, that's more like 1.8 million mmt (million million million tons).
So let's say you wanted to reduce your carbon footprint. Being a fanatic little greenie, you decide to give up your car. According to some online sources, if you stopped driving your average mid-sized car for a year, you'd save about 5.5 metric tons (or 0.0000055 million metric tons, mmt) of CO2 emissions per year. Divide 0.0000055mmtCO2 by 1,767,250 mmt/ºC and you get 3.06 * 10^-12 degrees C (3.06e-12 in calculator jockey jargon). If you took every car in the USA off the road, roughly 150 million, you've only changed the temperature .000458C per year.
There has been talk about reducing the US CO2 output to 80% of its current levels - at one time that was in the Cap and Trade bill that has been in congress off and on for the last year. The 2005 carbon output was about 6000 mmt, so 80% below that is 6000-4800 or 1200 mmt. 4800/1,800,000 is .0027C. So if you took 150 million average mid-sized cars off the road and reduced the power generation and other carbon uses, those add up to a whopping .003C! In other words, nothing. In no statistical test could you distinguish that result from zero. Bupkis.
Now, the economic havoc of that sort of restriction set is unimaginably awful. No cars, extremely limited electrical power, no ambulances, no police cruisers: a rural, agrarian lifestyle. There is no benefit. You are destroying the USA for no reason at all. If you choose to live that way, help yourself. Move out of the city, grow your own food, live on a farm. Knock yourself out. Most of us prefer modern civilization.
If you watch Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, he has a video of a guy he calls "the Wizard", Joel Rogers, saying exactly what I just demonstrated here with a few calculations. If you do all these things, it will have no measurable effect. At about 45 seconds into this video:
And that's the dirty, stupid little secret. Imagine there really is manmade global warming. Use their numbers. Calculate how much effect you would have on temperatures by virtually destroying everyone and everything you now know or ever have known, and it has no effect at all."
Well, empirical observations: records broken in the northern latitudes, fires on Alaska, major Greenland glaciers coming, and mean high tide records broken in the US.
Not enough to convince Flat Earthers.
"Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections"
Link to (voluminous) supplementary data for the above:
"Not enough to convince Flat Earthers."
Meaningless. Outliers that have been occurring for (likely) eons.
Hussein al-Ob a'ama's new beachside sea level home will be safe for hundreds of years.
“Hussein al-Ob a'ama's new beachside sea level home will be safe for hundreds of years.”
Probably the most twisted, racial, conspiracy-theory, BS thing I’ve ever seen posted on a Tesla Forum.
And please give up your assault weapons.
Your American Citizen neighbors should be afraid of people like you.
As for Climate, a child can understand the obligatory xkcd. Don’t shit where you eat.
"Probably the most twisted, racial, conspiracy-theory, BS thing I’ve ever seen posted on a Tesla Forum."
Really? Is Islam a race? Clearly, you have not been reading with discernment the many blatherings of the climate change fanatics right here on this tiny venue of bonhomie and unbiased discourse.
I need no help--but thank you for your concern.
What IS an "assault weapon" anyway? Can you intelligently define same?
Fearful "American Citizen neighbors"? Red Flag Hotline number memorized yet??
Climate = Regional/Geographical Weather.
Nikita, HC is right. Look!
What a surprise?
A look of terminal shock in your eyes?
Now that things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.
Obama is obviously not concerned about sea level rise. Thoughts? Comments? Are you global warming fanatics going to excuse him?
the amount of ignorance on display is is astounding
People with money is not also a representation of intelligence.
It’s interesting how Hadron demands that the arguments be ‘intelligent’ while his own suck the pond scum of ignorance.
Again, ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
Mitch, Hadron is your long lost twin.
Hadron finally displays his hatred of Barack Obama and probably Muslims. The deliberate distortion of Obama's name to make it sound somehow un-American is the tipoff. It's the essence of birtherism. Then Hadron hides behind "religion isn't a race." Doesn't work Hadron...we read your words and we know what you mean.
As I stated before, I don't flag even the most outlandish climate denier posts. Go for it. But Hadron's September 11 post is nothing but religious hatred. Tesla2018 had a post that conflated climate change science with sexual orientation using unacceptable slurs.. Tesla moderators had the good sense to remove it.
Hadron, you clearly are very angry. Ask yourself why.
Watch it andy. You are going to fall out of your human-caused global warming friends fast!
Speaking of fast, check out the Arctic ice, according to Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) data:
10 SEP 2019 - 4023354.77 km^2
11 SEP 2019 - 4056627.04 km^2
12 SEP 2019 - 4158949.78 km^2
The Arctic sea ice expanded 102,322.7 km^2 in one day with the high resolution measurement.
The NSIDC 15% or higher sea ice area is showing 4,314,000 km^2 on 11 SEP 2019. They use a 5-day running average to report the sea ice extent. I would be surprised to see the extent drop more than 50,000 km^2 the rest of this month. In fact, it may have already reached the minimum on 07 SEP 2019 - 4,293,000 km^2.
Looking more and more likely 2019 will make SEVEN years in a row closing higher than the 2012 minimum. This does not fit the human-caused global warming mantra. The Arctic is supposed to be melting away. The data shows it isn't happening even though the administrative types in NSIDC, NOAA, NASA, NCAR all say it is.
Neither "Barry Soetoro" nor "Barack Hussein Obama" are traditionally American names.
Did I miss something? Did Mr. Obama's ancestors come over on the Mayflower? If so, I stand corrected. Yet, he clearly identified his roots in his own words in "Dreams of My Father."
What? You didn't read it?
"Watch it andy. You are going to fall out of your human-caused global warming friends fast!"
I prefer human-accelerated global warming.
@HC: but you are fine with "Ted" Cruze?
@HC. Mayflower or traditional American names notwithstanding, we read your scarcely hidden Islamophobic post and we know what you mean. You can run but you can't hide.
OK andy, for you I will call it "human-accelerated global warming." But only you!
Hey H Collider, silly sabby thinks you are a member of the "basket of deplorables." Welcome to the club!
if the shoe fits
As to Hadron's post, if there is a club, then more's the pity. The Islamophobic, birther-like post stands on its own.
Better 438 comments in this thread, than 150 individual threads to flag.
PHOBIA: "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation."
And, since the 9/11 attacks there have been 35,614 deadly terror attacks by Muslims, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of injuries and untold mayhem throughout the world.
Thus, it would be irrational to NOT have a healthy fear of Islam.
There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia.' The term is a construct of Iranian fundamentalists:
"At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term "Islamophobia" formed in analogy to "xenophobia". The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.
But confession has no more in common with race than it has with secular ideology. Muslims, like Christians, come from the Arab world, Africa, Asia and Europe, just as Marxists, liberals and anarchists come or came from all over. In a democracy, no one is obliged to like religion, and until proved otherwise, they have the right to regard it as retrograde and deceptive. Whether you find it legitimate or absurd that some people regard Islam with suspicion—as they once did Catholicism—and reject its aggressive proselytism and claim to total truth—this has nothing to do with racism.
...The term "Islamophobia" serves a number of functions: it denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire."
Islamophobia—that is, the word itself—IS MEANT TO SILENCE YOU."
-- "The Invention Of Islamophobia" by MARTIN PERETZ in The New Republic, Jan. 09, 2011
"Thus, it would be irrational to NOT have a healthy fear of Islam."
Thats interesting for someone to tell me that i SHOULD be afraid. Kind of like mainstream media.
I have a good example of this. Mainstream media trying to make people think that EVs are not safe, and the Autopilot is not safe. How about trying to make people think Tesla will fail? You're not doing a good job here buddy.
@sabbia: I actually have pity for you in your persistent belief in "islamophobia." How easily you have been snookered by the Islamists who have maneuvered you to criticize any who would, in any way, be critical of Islam's tenets, behaviors and actions. How does it feel to be informed that you have been played by Iranians, that you are doing their bidding as they have set this word into play to gather and manipulate the ill-informed and the credulous, the useful idiots and even the true sociopaths among us?
You throw the term around like the early colonists did when castigating women & girls as "witches" and "devils."
As likely, you might have been the 'true believer' to set torch to the fuel at the pyres beneath those unfortunate women.
"Racist," "leper," unclean," "Islamophobe." Not to mention, "deplorable." These all stem from the same mindset.
Have a day.
you are most likely to be injured or killed by a white racist nationalist
@Mitch: "Basket of deplorables," you say? Hmm. Can I get them with a basket of chicken wings? To go?
"The Color of Crime"
Crime, broken down by race.
Basically @HADRON is typing nonsense which may or may have absolutely nothing to do with whatever "discussion" is going on in this thread. Then if anyone points out what hes doing (which they did) he replies with 6 paragraphs worth of information, which gave himself an infinite amount of off-topic talking points for anyone who responds to him. He ignores everything he doesnt want to respond to, which is everything that does not support his "hijack the discussion" agenda which he is doing very well. There are a few people on these forums that behave basically like non-humans and its an absolute waste to engage with.
Spoiler alert, @HADRON is one of them. If you havent already noticed.
@Hadron. You are a deplorable racist. Let’s try some factshttps://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-d...
That link he gave is a far right hate group site.
@NKYTA. These guys just make up shit. You cannot believe anything they say. Let’s start with his handle “Hadron Collider”. Who are we kidding. The closest he is to a Hadron is his degree of spin that comes in multiple flavors. He is a lying racist.