06 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidYes you are getting around to the point that all climate change deniers end up at. CO2 is at the Pliocene, temps are rising, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising. You don't think people are causing a measurable difference (which many people disagree with)..... but those are the facts. Instead of looking for solutions, deniers want to embrace our 3 degrees of warming. The Vikings seemed to like it.
I can't believe I have to correct you on this, but CO2 has tripled, not doubled.
We have already found out that today we have about the same CO2 levels as the Pliocene and it is not even close to as warm as the Pliocene was. There were no glaciers at all. They all melted, yet life flourished.
I'd rather look for solutions. We know enough about our climate to make some reasonable predictions about what would happen if we lowered carbon emissions and changed land use policies. Despite your view that they cost too much money, both proposals are cost neutral. Look it up.
06 Apr 19
1 edit
@humy saidSince you will not explain how you came to that conclusion you obviously have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. Sea level rise acceleration after 1950 to present is less than 50% compared to nearly the equal amount of time before that on the NASA graph. There wasn't even that much CO2 in the atmosphere before 1960 so it is an overly kind estimate that you cannot logically debate. That is why you can't give a better estimate. You know mine is more than fair. That is why you refuse to answer my questions.
No, unlike you, I use that data to conclude only what can logically be concluded from it and not try and conclude something that cannot logically be concluded from it.
This is part of the logic of scientific method.
I see you refuse to answer any of my questions; we all know why.
06 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidNo, you are in denial that GW is mostly natural. Climate change has always happened and always will. Nothing man does can do much about that.
Yes you are getting around to the point that all climate change deniers end up at. CO2 is at the Pliocene, temps are rising, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising. You don't think people are causing a measurable difference (which many people disagree with)..... but those are the facts. Instead of looking for solutions, deniers want to embrace our 3 degrees of warming. ...[text shortened]... icies. Despite your view that they cost too much money, both proposals are cost neutral. Look it up.
I keep stating the fact that you cause and effect is backwards because it is. It is not my fault you embrace Al Gore falsehoods and cannot let go of them even when science has discredited him. You are hopeless. You think gossip proves something because you want to believe it so bad. It is like a religion that makes no sense except to the blind followers.
A carbon tax is cost neutral? You are bloody insane!
07 Apr 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidwhich 'conclusion' of mine are you referring to here?
Since you will not explain how you came to that conclusion
The rest of your post is confused, doesn't answer any of my questions, and explains nothing.
07 Apr 19
9 edits
@metal-brain saidWhat you constantly don't get is that whether it is "mostly" natural has extremely little if any relevance.
No, you are in denial that GW is mostly natural.
What is relevant is the bit that isn't natural, whether that bit is 10% or 90% or whatever, and, more specifically, how much harm that unnatural bit does, because how much harm that does is obviously the only bit we should be interested in here.
If "mostly" natural means, lets say for example, 50.0001% natural as opposed to, lets say for example, 49.9999% natural, the relevance of that difference in percentage, which obviously would be in terms of how much difference in harm the unnatural part does, is close-enough zilch because the amount of harm done in those two cases would be almost identical.
By continually harping on about whether it is "mostly", you are implicitly implying there is something magically special about the completely arbitrary figure of exactly 50% thus implying it makes a huge difference whether it is just an extremely tiny bit above or below that completely arbitrary figure of exactly 50%, which is nonsense.
07 Apr 19
@humy said"What has how high CO2 was in 1950 got to do with it? WHY 1950 and not, say, year 2000? It is a totally arbitrary and baseless choice of year."
Clearly false. That data doesn't show whether the sea level is or isn't natural, whether 'mainly' or not. It ONLY shows sea level rise.I even went back to 1950 which was generous considering CO2 levels were not even that high back then.
What has how high CO2 was in 1950 got to do with it? WHY 1950 and not, say, year 2000? It is a totally arbitrary and basele ...[text shortened]... increase of sea level rise itself since some completely arbitrary chosen point in time in the past.
Duh! That is exactly why I asked you how you would estimate it, but you have no intention of doing that because you simply have no idea how and only want to claim my method is wrong while presenting nothing of your own. In other words, sea level is irrelevant to you. It means nothing. If it means nothing to you then stop posting on this thread. This is a sea level rise thread. If you claim it means nothing then you are posting for nothing but to satisfy your urge to troll.
"I ask you yet again, what equation or maths formula (which you claimed is just "simple maths" ) do you use to estimate the percentage of how much of that sea level increase is man made by that sea level data plus CO2 data alone? I claim no such formula exists.
Your continuous refusal to answer that very simple question proves you either lie or don't know what you are talking about"
I explained in detail how I estimated the percentage. Your claim that I refused to answer that question is a pathetic lie. If fact, it is you that failed to answer my questions. Now that I answered yours you should answer mine. Don't evade my questions and prove your goal is to troll and nothing more.
"And why 1980 and not, say, 2000? What do YOU think is so 'special' (in terms of relevance) about year 1980 in particular which you keep quoting?"
Ask wildgrass. He thinks 1980 is significant because of CO2 increase. Why don't you look at CO2 data yourself instead of asking unnecessary questions. You are doing exactly what sonhouse claims is intellectual laziness. You would already know if you were not so lazy.
07 Apr 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNo, clearly you didn't because you still refuse to give your maths formula for that. Still waiting...
I explained in detail how I estimated the percentage.
07 Apr 19
@humy saidI explained it in detail. If you find the missing data from the NASA link I can do the math up to date except one year short of 2020. I can start from 1949 if that will satisfy you and I will provide the math for you. Agreed?
No, clearly you didn't because you still refuse to give your maths formula for that. Still waiting...
07 Apr 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidAgreed.
I can start from 1949 if that will satisfy you and I will provide the math for you. Agreed?
Still waiting for you to show us your maths formula you would use for that...
If you find the missing data from the NASA link
What "missing data"?
And what would your maths formula you would use for that if you had that "missing data"? -Very simple question you will not answer and we all know why.
07 Apr 19
1 edit
@humy saidHere is the NASA link:
Agreed.
Still waiting for you to show us your maths formula you would use for that...If you find the missing data from the NASA link
What "missing data"?
And what would your maths formula you would use for that if you had that "missing data"? -Very simple question you will not answer and we all know why.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Look at the long term graph that goes back to 1880. Notice the most recent data is more or less 2012 on that graph. That is why I said it was a little outdated because it is. Find the missing data up to 2018 and instead of splitting that graph at 1950 we will do it at 1949 which would be exactly the half point of 1880 to 2018. We then compare sea level rise from 1880 - 1949 to the 1949 - 2018 time period.
If the earlier half is 100 mm and the second half is 145 mm that is a 45% increase for example. I need the last 6 years of data or the sea level at the end of 2018 to give you the exact math. I explained that to you in detail before. I think you understand that well, but you are making an effort to be difficult and pretend you don't remember.
Find the missing data you pretended you didn't know about. Nobody can make an accurate estimate and show exact math without it. I explained that to you in a crystal clear way. Stop pretending you don't remember!
07 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidStill waiting for you to show us your maths formula you would use for that...
Here is the NASA link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Look at the long term graph that goes back to 1880. Notice the most recent data is more or less 2012 on that graph. That is why I said it was a little outdated because it is. Find the missing data up to 2018 and instead of splitting that graph at 1950 we will do it at 1949 which would be exactly ...[text shortened]... math without it. I explained that to you in a crystal clear way. Stop pretending you don't remember!
07 Apr 19
1 edit
@humy saidYou agreed to give those last 6 or so years of data and then and only then would I give you the exact math. Stop pretending you do not remember. You are intentional trying to obfuscate again.
Still waiting for you to show us your maths formula you would use for that...
If you have a suggestion as to how to improve an estimate I am willing to consider it, but doing nothing but obstruct the only effort proposed is not constructive criticism. It is pure obstructionism in the effort to obfuscate and offer nothing in a collaborative effort for progress. Your only goal is obstructionism to hide failure.
07 Apr 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, I didn't. Perhaps you didn't understand my words of "What "missing data"?" ? And you don't need extra data to show your maths formula you would use if you had that extra data. Still waiting for you to show your maths formula you would use for that...... Why don't you ever prove to us all you aren't a liar by just showing us all the maths formula you would use for that if you had that extra data? -we all know why; you are a liar; you have no such maths formula.
You agreed to give those last 6 or so years of data
07 Apr 19
@humy saidYou did agree. You agreed to provide the missing data and then you pretended not to know there was missing data. I explained it perfectly to you. Are you now going to pretend the last 6 years of data do not matter?
No, I didn't. Perhaps you didn't understand my words of "What "missing data"?" ? And you don't need extra data to show your maths formula you would use if you had that extra data. Still waiting for you to show your maths formula you would use for that...... Why don't you ever prove to us all you aren't a liar by just showing us all the maths formula you would use for that if you had that extra data? -we all know why; you are a liar; you have no such maths formula.
I cannot show you the math of data that is missing. Common sense. You agreed to provide that missing data. Now you are lying about it. The last 6 years are the years with the highest CO2 levels. Only a moron would want to omit them.
07 Apr 19
Humy clearly does not want an honest discussion about sea level rise. He is debating in circles in a dishonest way. He expects math without numbers.
Anyone here is welcome to suggest a better method than mine. Never suggesting anything better and being a critic in a dishonest way is not productive. It shows humy has nothing to offer but mindless obstructionism which is a complete waste of time bothering with.
Global warming is mostly from natural causes.