One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe warns world’s leading climate scientists
Page <<first <prev 14 of 22 next> last>>
Feb 20, 2019 04:12:14   #
Morgan
 
emarine wrote:
Wow... I think that some of our buddy's missed the boat...


Yep, it pays to read the full article.

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 08:04:38   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
redpill wrote:
Nice informative post. I applaud you for sharing REAL information rather than the diatribe posted by others because they do not research enough to see that this climate change hysteria is just a ploy to empower a few at the expense of the many.

I have made some headway with friends and relatives on modifying their views on the horrors of "CLIMATE CHANGE!!!". They are seeing that the hype is just that. However, it is hard because we are bombarded with media "climate change this, climate change that". Barely one word on the validity of skeptical alternative views based on facts.
Nice informative post. I applaud you for sharing ... (show quote)


Thank You redpill.. Its a constant mission to try and set the record straight given the mass propaganda to infuse hysteria and fear over what our Earth does cyclically since she was born...

Climate changevis real, every sesdon we expierence it...

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 09:05:50   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Morgan wrote:
Please tell me what do you think they are actually saying in their error? The integrity they had to admit there was an error, was honorable, while this does not invalidate the research, it rather supports it further, as the rate of heat is much higher and going at a faster rate, do you understand what this means? To quote them:

Essentially, the authors measured the volume of gases, specifically oxygen and carbon dioxide, that have escaped the ocean in recent decades and headed into the atmosphere as it heats up. They found that the warming “is at the high end of previous estimates” and suggested that as a result, the rate of global warming itself could be more accelerated.

The results, wrote the authors, may suggest there is less time than previously thought to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Please tell me what do you think they are actually... (show quote)


Their “ integrity” came about after they were called out by other scientists. Then edited to sugar cost their findings yet still saying what they did in the article to reboost their position..

Sorry but their flawed data negates their supposed findings...Its called egg on their face...Even they said “Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming..
A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim.”...

Some quotes that illustrates a little bit into the mind of authors of original paper:

A quick bit of mental arithmetic indicated that a change of 23.2 between 1991 and 2016 represented an annual rate of approximately 0.9, well below their 1.16 value.

The Conclusions part of the blog post is worth putting in the entirety here:

The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for.

Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning Nature, climate scientists and the MSM are.

On November 1st there was extensive coverage in the mainstream media[i] and online[ii] of a paper just published in the prestigious journal Nature. The article,[iii] by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and eight other authors, used a novel method to estimate heat uptake by the ocean over the period 1991–2016 and came up with an atypically high value.[iv] The press release [v] accompanying the Resplandy et al. paper was entitled “Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat per year than previously thought”,[vi] and said that this suggested that Earth is more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than previously thought.

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view.

Trend estimates

The method used by Resplandy et al. was novel, and certainly worthy of publication. The authors start with observed changes in ‘atmospheric potential oxygen’ (ΔAPOOBS).[vii] In their model, one component of this change (ΔAPOClimate) is due to warming of the oceans, and they derived an estimate of its value by calculating values for the other components.[viii] A simple conversion factor then allows them to convert the trend in ΔAPOClimate into an estimate of ocean heat uptake (the trend in ocean heat content).

On page 1 they say:

From equation (1), we thereby find that ΔAPOClimate = 23.20 ± 12.20 per meg, corresponding to a least squares linear trend of +1.16 ± 0.15 per meg per year[ix]

A quick bit of mental arithmetic indicated that a change of 23.2 between 1991 and 2016 represented an annual rate of approximately 0.9, well below their 1.16 value. As that seemed surprising, I extracted the annual ΔAPO best-estimate values and uncertainties from the paper’s Extended Data Table 4[x] and computed the 1991–2016 least squares linear fit trend in the ΔAPOClimate values. The trend was 0.88, not 1.16, per meg per year, implying an ocean heat uptake estimate of 10.1 ZJ per year,[xi] well below the estimate in the paper of 13.3 ZJ per year.[xii]

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2019 09:07:10   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Morgan wrote:
Yep, it pays to read the full article.


Yup, it also pays to check your references for validity..

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 09:10:48   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
emarine wrote:
Wow... I think that some of our buddy's missed the boat...


Hey there e, always nice to see you pop in ..

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 10:09:38   #
Morgan
 
lindajoy wrote:
Yup, it also pays to check your references for validity..


My references? It was your article you posted, I simply read it in its entirety. This doesn't negate anything of the earth heating up by man, again, it only emphasizes at the rate of speed that it is increasing by, the small discrepancy is almost a moot point.

The chart from your page, with all three indicators, show the result of the ever-increasing temp. climb and not due to simply earth's cyclical weather changes. ...there is no denying that though you will continue on your quest.



Reply
Feb 20, 2019 10:16:36   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Morgan wrote:
The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

Urgent changes needed to cut the risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC

It's time to face reality and we need to heed the warning and make the changes we need to along with the rest of the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
The world’s leading climate scientists have warned... (show quote)


When you guys stop China from building 700 more coal fired plants and all the others from building thousands more, and get them to divert that money to your "green" policies, maybe the US will consider working to avert this mythical tragedy. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2019 10:25:50   #
Morgan
 
redpill wrote:
The IPCC is a farse. Climate change is a natural evolution of the planet. Man-made changes are minimal. Do not spend a penny to try and geo-engineer our world. We are not capable of descerning the effects of such actions. Deal with real man-made issues, ie air pollution, deforestation, ground water pollution, etc.

From the American Thinker Jan 19, 2019
"If the people who are pushing the "humans cause global warming/climate change" narrative to scare the public cared about pollution, they would go after lithium, not CO2. If they cared about ecology, they would care about the hundreds of thousands of birds and other wildlife killed by wind turbines and solar farms. They obviously don't. They want control of our lives and trillions of dollars, and they don't care whom they need to destroy or what jobs they have to destroy to get the power and money."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_media_continue_to_indoctrinate_and_scare_the_public_about_climate_change_.html
The IPCC is a farse. Climate change is a natural ... (show quote)


I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about man-made increased global warming, which has proven, except seen as a farce only to the people who wish to follow the oil industries propaganda locomotion on "climate change".

Did you also support the cigarette companies when they constantly tried to disprove the findings on smoking and cancer?

If your doctor were to tell you if you don't change your lifestyle you'll have a heart attack, but it scares you, so you go home and keep doing what you always have?

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 10:44:05   #
Morgan
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
When you guys stop China from building 700 more coal fired plants and all the others from building thousands more, and get them to divert that money to your "green" policies, maybe the US will consider working to avert this mythical tragedy. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!


Um, that's just what Obama tried to do, which you guys screamed about cutting off workers when in reality green bobs were created and many more can be. Now Trump has dismantled that also to fire up our own coal mines and destroy our beautiful mountains for coal mining.

These mountains some of the oldest in the world with the largest variety of trees in the world, and should be protected. I would rather see wind Mills then this destruction, this soil disturbance also negatively effects the local waters with toxic contaminants. You want to LOLOLOL!!!!! at that too? To make matters worse all that to sell the coal to China!

this has already been done to 500 mountains tops in the Appleachian mountains.
this has already been done to 500 mountains tops i...

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 10:49:28   #
emarine
 
lindajoy wrote:
Hey there e, always nice to see you pop in ..




LJ ... how's the weather buddy?... yes, I'm just reading along trying to figure out when to move aboard for the big flood... it seems all the data proves it is warming in our lifetime & that's what matters...you live up a mile high & I live on the water... you require a lot less planning on how to react to change... I just saw an entire town go under 9 foot of water last September... it happened in one day... the planet is mostly ocean & rises quickly when it wants to...

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 11:06:43   #
Morgan
 
emarine wrote:
LJ ... how's the weather buddy?... yes, I'm just reading along trying to figure out when to move aboard for the big flood... it seems all the data proves it is warming in our lifetime & that's what matters...you live up a mile high & I live on the water... you require a lot less planning on how to react to change... I just saw an entire town go under 9 foot of water last September... it happened in one day... the planet is mostly ocean & rises quickly when it wants to...


Aside from the glaciers falling from Greenland and Antarctica to increase the water levels, it'll be real interesting to see what will happen to the Atlantic Conveyor. Ha Capt.welcome to Waterworld!

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2019 12:06:23   #
Morgan
 
Morgan wrote:
Um, that's just what Obama tried to do, which you guys screamed about cutting off workers when in reality green bobs were created and many more can be. Now Trump has dismantled that also to fire up our own coal mines and destroy our beautiful mountains for coal mining.

These mountains some of the oldest in the world with the largest variety of trees in the world, and should be protected. I would rather see wind Mills then this destruction, this soil disturbance also negatively effects the local waters with toxic contaminants. You want to LOLOLOL!!!!! at that too? To make matters worse all that to sell the coal to China!
Um, that's just what Obama tried to do, which you ... (show quote)


LOL correction that was green jobs and not green bobs

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 12:27:03   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Morgan wrote:
My references? It was your article you posted, I simply read it in its entirety. This doesn't negate anything of the earth heating up by man, again, it only emphasizes at the rate of speed that it is increasing by, the small discrepancy is almost a moot point.

The chart from your page, with all three indicators, show the result of the ever-increasing temp. climb and not due to simply earth's cyclical weather changes. ...there is no denying that though you will continue on your quest.
My references? It was your article you posted, I s... (show quote)



I did read the entire article and like I said~~ Its the Washington Post~~ having now a confilict in opinions I went a-bit farther trying to determine what went on and how so many gifted Scientist working toward a conclusion could have such gross negligance in their numbers which was what they premised/blamed our heating up on ..How then can the rest of their facts be correct???

And you relied on Washington Posts claims knowing they are anything but truthfull.. If you caught my comment to nwtk I even said I used it for the very reason he made reference to, ie He was surprised they posted it at all..Thay had to since everyone else was at that point, that’s the answer for it..

You took for granted their commentary because it fits your position..When something as significant as the erronious claim came out and challenged within days of its publication you would have wanted clearification,I would assume..???

Prior to my publication of what I had read that brought the article facts up, adid you check any other sources??

Yes, I wil continue to try open peoples eyes to the reality of climate change, and its propaganda and the real need to keep from polluting, our land, water and air.. Just you will try to orn their eyes to the need to reduce CO2 because it's killing us
Off in time~~ 12 years so your article says...oh, wait, I forgot you said in another thread you never said this you just posted the article..

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 12:27:56   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Morgan wrote:
Um, that's just what Obama tried to do, which you guys screamed about cutting off workers when in reality green bobs were created and many more can be. Now Trump has dismantled that also to fire up our own coal mines and destroy our beautiful mountains for coal mining.

These mountains some of the oldest in the world with the largest variety of trees in the world, and should be protected. I would rather see wind Mills then this destruction, this soil disturbance also negatively effects the local waters with toxic contaminants. You want to LOLOLOL!!!!! at that too? To make matters worse all that to sell the coal to China!
Um, that's just what Obama tried to do, which you ... (show quote)


Obama tried to stop China et al from building coal fired plants?

Reply
Feb 20, 2019 12:29:58   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Morgan wrote:
LOL correction that was green jobs and not green bobs


Now Morgan, I must say lololololol, and have to admit when I first read this I thought you said green boobs...

So it was funny then too..
I make more mistakes than you can imagine...A cute laugh this is!!!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 14 of 22 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.