Ocean News

"conference is to create a binding agreement on plans for climate from all nations of the world."
Impossible for the USA.
Only the US Senate can make a treaty.
No treaty? No binding agreement.


Some so called americans don't know the Constitution or how their government works and don't know mathematics.
Probably product of a "progressive" (socialist) run public school.

 

And THIS is why they need to understand mathematics if they're going to discuss AGW.




And they need to understand the Constitution and separation of powers before they make irresponsible and undeliverable promises of binding agreements.

 

People lack understanding of the complexity of freedom. They would crush human commerce.

How would they rule us without pencils?

The same and more complexity applies to boat design and construction.

The simple pencil isn't so simple, with its graphite, wood, paint, maker's mark, eraser and eraser band. Imagine the individual pieces that make up a boat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaFzhoS67I

Yeah, I know, I cut and paste. So does the world.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

Oops! I did it again!

 

I thought the North Pole was melted! Must burn more wood, or concrete if I run short of wood. I may need to put some used motor oil on it to keep it lit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSE9Zjh364M

 

No significant warming for two decades, and 17 of those years shown here.
took liberty of writing the minute differences.
1998 and 2015 were less than half a degree Fahrenheit difference in global average.





All these years are very near the same temperature. other years in the same period were cooler. All less than half a degree apart.

Significant warming didn't occur, but CO2 increased significantly.
why disconnected?
Because CO2 is basically flatlined. Incapable of producing significant additional warming regardless of parts per million.
The logarithmic relationship and equation graphed in a previous post above.

 

Seems odd that you would use this web site as an example to prove your point. The three examples shown show increasing temperatures whether CO2 emissions are held flat at 2015 amounts, whether CO2 emissions continue to rise indefinitely, or whether CO2 emissions rise until 2050, then fall dramatically. The big difference between these three scenarios is how far temperatures rise.

Agree. But in the range of CO2 levels we are discussing, and for the exponential increase in CO2 emissions that we are currently experiencing, the radiative forcing by CO2 can apparently be roughly approximated as a linear increase in temperature.

Apparently, most climate scientists feel your simple CO2 model does not adequately describe our complex atmosphere.

 

Note the huge increase between 2014 and 2015. And some climate scientists are predicting that 2016 will be even hotter than 2015.

Not good...

As predicted...

 

How much did you buy, and at what price?

As Coal’s Future Grows Murkier, Banks Pull Financing | New York Times

You and Yob seem to specialize in giving bad advice. Maybe you should go into business together, publish a newsletter. Whatever you recommend, I'll short!

 

Scenarios that don't match the observed data are merely fantasy.

The red line in the chart IS OBSERVED DATA.
That's not a scenario, it's reality.

and apparently you and others can't grasp the simple mathematical fact, a logarithmic equation can NEVER be forced into being a linear equation or plot on a chart as linear. A million parts per million won't cause a linear rise in temperature.


Here's why.

For each "doubling". That isn't 2,4,6,8,10.
Doubling is 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256, 512,1024, 2048, 4096
And the observed temperature rise isn't equal for each doubling but lessening for each doubling.

So were at 400 ppm, and a half degree rise by 800 ppm, and another quarter degree rise by 1600 ppm, and another eighth degree rise by 3200 ppm , and a sixteenth degree rise by 6400 ppm, ect

All these rises total 15/16ths of a degree, and by 12800 ppm only another 1/32nd of a degree, still hasn't reached a full degree additional rise in temperature with 32 times as much CO2 as currently in atmosphere.
And when it's 64 times as much CO2 as today, the temperature rise will be 63/64ths of a degree above todays temperature.

It approaches, but never arrives at the maximum limit, because the increase in temperature is more and more diminutive over greater lengths of time, while CO2 increase by larger and larger amounts.
Co2 eventually approaching infinitely large, while temperature approaches infinitely small.

Temperature is always increasing, but not significantly increasing.
And won't reach 2 degree C above 1950-1980 baseline.

Might get higher from some other factor, but CO2 can't do it..

This is flatlining.

ALL logarithmic equations behave this way. They NEVER are linear.
A linear equation is entirely different from a logarithmic equation.

 

What university did you say you got your math degree from? You may be due a partial refund!

 

Just the effect of weariness from trying to teach pigs to sing. It won't work and only annoys the pigs.

Should have been 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16,384 etc....

 

Sorry, 512, 1024. 2048

been a long day,

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/scie...6-3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=referral

The scientist who first warned us about climate change says it’s way worse than we thought, Now, the final version of the paper has been published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. It’s been reviewed and lightly edited, but its conclusions are still shocking — and still contentious.

So what’s the deal? The authors highlight several of threats they believe we’ll face this century, including many feet of sea-level rise, a halting of major ocean circulatory currents, and an outbreak of super storms. These are the big threats we’ve been afraid of — and Hansen et al. say they could be here before we know it — well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sanctioned climate models predict.

Here we help you understand their new paper: