Ocean News

You say so,and others you agree with say so, so you voted in a fact/ facts aren't acquired by votes!

I'll toss you a bone, but you won't like it I bet.

Your chart shows human Co2 contribution increasing dramatically (the way the chart is drawn appears dramatic, as intended) over past 60 years.

IPCC claims and you endorse the statement, CO2 is retained for hundreds of years. Tha'st multiple hundreds. I'll let you get by with the minimal plural hundreds, 200. Add a pinch more because the math will be easier for you tto swallow. 240 years.

Okay, if the ratio of annual contribution has been equal or less than humans current contribution of less than 5%, let's say it was 5% for the past sixty years.

Okay, we have sixty year old human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere and being contributed for sixty years.
We have 240 year old and 240 years worth of natural CO2 r etained in today's atmosphere.

The annual ratio is 95 to 5, and the time ratio is 4 to one. 240 to 60

Retained CO2 today, is 95% X 240 years for natural and 5% times 60 years for humans.

228 to 3. 3 divided by 228=0.01315789473. abridge to a significant number, .013

Amout of human retained centuries old CO2 is .013 of total retained.

Though humans have only pumped significant CO2 into the atmosphere for sixty years, nature has always been a dominant contributor!

Here we, go, I bet! You want to ignore the natural contribution. LOL

Any supposed retention greater than four years quickly creates crazy numbers for current ppm. GIVE IT UP!

 

NO!!! The chart does not show that the human contribution is increasing. It shows that the sum total of all contributions minus the sum total of all sinks is increasing.

You have to use other processes/techniques to determine where that excess is coming from. And many scientific studies have shown that the natural sources are more or less constant. It is just the human sources that are driving the increase.

Therefore, the rest of your arguments are garbage.

 

AGW theory is garbage.

I have shown how IPCC's climate model treats human CO2 with a false heavy thumb on the scale.

Inputing natures 95% contribution in the Bern model, creates 15,000 ppm of retained CO2, because of the built in heavy thumb intended for humans 5%.. The model is corrupt, so is the IPCC, so is anything they propose, and so are your arguments for endorsing and quoting their false talking points.

We'll let history tell which side is the vacuous smile clown.

You ignore the 15,000 ppm CO2 the IPCC model generates for natural CO2, just as I predicted. Ignore the math!

 

You have shown nothing of the sort. The only thing you've shown is how little you understand.

 

Well, I was showing Dr Ed Berry's work without posting his paper which is copyrighted. I posted the url where you could read it. If you chose not to read it, you lose by default!

Other people choose to read it and if you don't, your arguments come up lame, and they recognize that!
Ignoring is ignorance!

 

Scientists don't copyright their research. Fantasy writers copyright their novels.

 

Roflmao. You haven't a leg to stand on, so you come up with that shtick for a crutch.? LOL! All fall down!
His paper is a preprint in peer review for publication in a journal and copyrighted.

Why human CO2 does not change climate - edberry.com https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-not-change-climate/

Suggest you read it before attempting to dismiss it, next time. You're bound to hear more about the climate models heavy thumbed anti-human bias.

Another suggestion, don't lie out in the sun too long. you might get hypoxia instead of sunburned.
Not the sun, but CO2 is dangerous, right?

 

New Study Shows Global Warming Intensifying Extreme Rainstorms Over North America

At the current level of warming caused by greenhouse gases—about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial average—extreme rainstorms that in the past happened once every 20 years will occur every five years, according to the study. If the current rate of warming continues, Earth will heat up 5.4 degrees by 2100. Then, 20, 50 and 100-year extreme rainstorms could happen every 1.5 to 2.5 years, the researchers concluded.

Easterling said most current infrastructure, such as dams and bridges, was designed based on rainfall values from the mid- to late-20th century and was not built to withstand the more frequent extreme rains identified by the new research.

"There are going to be much more damaging floods that are going to wash out a lot of the infrastructure," he said. "You'll see more floods and bigger floods and major impacts to our civil engineering infrastructure."

 

Could? Safe predictions for 2100 after the erstwhile prophet is dead and beyond ridicule? LOL
I'm devising an app to suggest all possible coulds.. As soon as trillion terrabyte memory is available in smart phones, the app will fit in the phones.
I predict it will be a popular app! Go fund me.

What's probable? Your POV folks are going to be red faced embarrassed prior to 2030!

 

Not only your theory and climate models are trash, so is much of your data!
UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

With unscientific theories, heavy thumb weighted bias, and warped fudge climate models, now add error ridden data, Eureka, your sides predictions are highly likely to be spot on?.
I bet against them.

I have a suggestion for alarmists.
If they can contort their bodies as much as they contort their "science", they could attempt what I want to suggest!
A companion activity for circular reasoning. The snake swallowing it's own tail? Not exactly, but something similar!

 

Do alarmists really care about real life problems affecting real people? Or is it care about promoting their agenda, gaining more control?

Australian Environment Foundation https://www.australianenvironment.org/

When AGW groups gain management control, is the result mismanagement?

 

Why is science never settled? Because of the sad history of scientific error! After a period of popular belief, many "science" notions eventually end up despised and publicly shamed. And correctly so! AGW will soon join phrenology in the waste bin of history.

An example of shameful science, that only modified it's view to a socially acceptable presentation, not abandoned, is Darwinism!
Darwins complete book title, as originally published on 24 November 1859
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"




Anybody want to pull down statues of Darwin? AGW will be red faced embarrassed prior to 2030

 

Cost of extreme weather due to climate change is severely underestimated

Over the past decade, a compelling body of evidence has linked a range of extreme weather events to human-caused climate change.

This area of research – known as “event attribution” – provides a means for climate scientists to examine how the severity and frequency of weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts and storms, are changing as greenhouse gas concentrations rise........

The two sets of costs are not directly comparable – one measures reductions in economic performance and the other measures insured losses. The main insight is that event attribution is able to show that climate change is already causing significant losses to New Zealand. Climate change is not only a future problem, but it is costing us here and now..........

The results are striking: we estimate that around US$67bn of the Hurricane [Harvey]’s overall US$90bn are associated with climate change.

This is a far higher estimate than that which would be obtained from conventional economic models for the cost of climate change in the US, such as in the model built by Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus..........

Using attributable costs
1. By central banks and treasuries as they are increasingly asked to consider climate change-related risks........

2. By insurance companies and investors that may find attributable cost techniques useful as an additional line of evidence regarding the way their risks are changing.

3. By policymakers tasked with assessing the social cost of carbon; a number that may guide national emission targets.........

4. By parties wishing to pursue arguments regarding “loss and damage” arising from climate change, potentially including lawsuits........

5. By investors as they consider divestment, especially in light of (3) and (4)..........

 

First you have to prove, not assume, weather is more severe than in the past, then you have to PROVE not speculate, warming is responsible, then you have to take into consideration inflation when comparing costs of hurricanes in other decades, then you are faced with the delemna, is there anything you can do about it.

If you suggest reducing human CO2 as a reducing of warming, you have two more things to prove. CO2 causes warming and humans contribute a significant, causal, amount.

None of the above have been proved. In fact, are contra-indicated!
Alarmists consider them axioms not needing proof!
Or they claim it's been proved, but sorry, can't show proof, someone else has it, or they just spout a bunch of circular spin mouthing off.
Unscientific attitude whatever they do short of demonstrating scientific proof they don't have. Fudged climate models only prove unethical methods.

What do self styled "experts" say when they believe something, with conviction (faith) and can't find proof for it?
It's "LINKED"
Quoting i, "LINKED a range of extreme weather events to human-caused climate change."

 

The damages and losses must be disproportionately higher for boats and harbors right? Boating will become more expensive.

Can you make a harbor and the boats in the harbor "hurricane proof"?

The problem in general is that these losses are socialized. The taxpayer will have to bail out damages to infrastructure or large scale devastation. Cost of business will rise with higher insurance premiums but in the end the consumer pays for that. More wealth redistribution.
While the profits of rebuilding represent a tasty business opportunity. Every hurricane some people in the building industry must get rich.