|
longweekend58
|
Big Donger wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 3:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Big Donger wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 1:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 12:53pm: Big Donger wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 12:42pm: Big Donger wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 9:54am: longweekend58 wrote on May 26 th, 2017 at 9:40am: Big Donger wrote on May 25 th, 2017 at 4:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 25 th, 2017 at 4:13pm: Big Donger wrote on May 25 th, 2017 at 2:58pm: mothra wrote on May 25 th, 2017 at 1:58pm: I defer to your superior knowledge, Karnal
I remain, however, not hopeful. At the rate we're going now, we're not going to keep warming within the 2% rise predicted for 2050. This is the aim of the Paris Accord, and this rise is a conservative estimate. I'm pinning my hopes on Europe and China. Under Trump, the US government is no longer the beacon of science and reason that was once held up to the world. We will make Amerika great again, no? and what rate is that? The rate where there was zero warming for 18 years followed by a small amount that is still below the historical average and well within natural variation? Or is it the rate that the computer models predict? The same models that predicted quite a number of serious outcomes due to have already occurred and of which, none eventuated? Or even got close? We know next to nothing about climate and yet we presume to know all the answers and to make predictions that routine fail spectacularly. We know the climate is warming, and we know CO2 levels are making it warm. We don't know how much CO2 to take out or how much of a difference this will make, but most are prepared to take a slight leap of faith when it comes to preventing the planet overheating. Year 9 maths, innit. so we have a few thoughts, a few guesses and thats it? not much to base a global policy on. No, we have a consistent rise in global temperatures which corresponds to CO2 emissions. The temperature rise is actually exceeding predictions. A global policy is the only thing that can fix this. Mother's right. I have no hope for this either. actually we have a very INconsistent rise that included a 18year peeriof of zero rise. The relationship to C02 is complex at best and not even remotely linear. Temperatures are way BELOW predictions. IN other words, everything the Climate REligion sprouts is generally wrong if not absolutely wrong. You're right. It's not linear because ocean temperatures, ice melting and other greenhouse gasses (methane) also play a role. We've all seen your 18 year of no temperature rise data, Longy. Your own data showed a temperature rise. Year 9 maths, innit. no credible observer or scientist claims that the 18 year hiatus didnt occur. And did all those other things play a part? of course, but what is your point? My point is you've now gone from a period of no warming to a "hiatus". I'd be very careful if I were you, Longy. You're condemning Trump for being a fake. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to present the facts on their merits. No credible observer or scientist denies global warming. This is also my point. please explain the difference between a 'hiatus' in warming and ' a period of no warming'. and the existence of a warming climate proves nothing since it has done so hundreds of times before. The proof (that is non-existent) is that the current warming - which is still below historical averages - is outside normal variations - which it isnt. So you're saying global warming doesn't actually exist? interesting. What do you have to say to every single person who has investigated this subject and concurred that it does? you claim to be an english teacher. Given your presumed training in comprehension, try reading my reply once more or even several times and then explain how you came to the conclusion you did. No one really beleives you are an english teacher anyhow, but it takes a special kind of stupid to interpret my comments the way you ahve.
|
Forum
Pages: 
