US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

What about Dr. Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick curve" that he based upon the the rings of one tree? The IPPC used that to base policy upon. This is a key study based upon fraud and it has had major world wide political, economic, and personal effects. It has made many people poorer, and a few people richer. This is the hurtful effect that the climate cultists impose upon people.

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Over 5 dozen hockey sticks. Different groups of researchers. Different data sets. Different Methodologies. Same conclusion.

https://gist.github.com/priscian/810...38542fb7027eaf

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

More Acronyms? Please communicate in understandable language. What are those numbers?

UAH = University of Alabama Huntsville
RSS= remote sensing system

Both ( infact all ) get their data from the same source satellite owned by nasa
It's all in the algorithms to decipher the data
They are not the same but the different temperatures are consistent as in rss is consistently the same amount above UAH numbers.

But all are not agreeing with the models .27°C per decade rise .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Translation: "I know that everything you said is WRONG. btw, what did you just say?"

Another climate cultist who will obfuscates and refuses to clarify when asked.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Over 5 dozen hockey sticks. Different groups of researchers. Different data sets. Different Methodologies. Same conclusion.

https://gist.github.com/priscian/810...38542fb7027eaf

No they merely duplicated his squed report in getting their own thesis approved same as he did .

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

So the consumption drops dramatically as does my own when solar energy is not available. This is the correct behavior, though the contrasts will need to be more pronounced. Rather than a 30% dip, it could be a 90% dip, maintaining essential services such as hospitals from battery reserves, pumped hydro, imported power from elsewhere that sun/wind is available. Assembly lines may be halted for lack of energy, instead the workers can perform tasks that do not rely on electrical energy.

If we produced products that didn't break or fail in a few years, there would not be a need to produce so many of them anyway which would basically solve the problem. It did in the past, as I often have hand tools 100 years old where a new tool I buy at the store today breaks the first time I use it.

This is a strength to be able to adapt and have multiple skills, more knowledge and so forth. Buildings can be heated/cooled passively and maintain temperature through the year without energy input. This has been proven with geodesic domes, earth ships, and may other examples.

It is simply not true that the electrical power grid needs 100% uptime. Industry must adapt and modify their schedules to the weather. As sailors we all understand how transportation availability varies depending on the current conditions, but in the end we get done what we need to and move from place to place. Insisting on a "right now" approach to consumption is an issue, and not a legitimate argument for conventional power or any other type of behavior, it is simply selfish. It is unacceptable that some here insist on diesel power in their boats as this is just an example of selfish and spoiled behavior.

Conservation, and a more circular economy.

The amount of single use products and of designed to have limited usefulness is tremendously wasteful and expensive. So many products are designed not to be repaired or to fail in a relatively short period of time.

The watt not used is the least expensive power. Enhanced efficiency typically reduces the life cycle cost.

Demand time shifting / level loading to match renewable power production is a very wise concept. Similar as to storing power during peak production so as to level the supply.

Make hay when the sun shines, comes to mind.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

UAH = University of Alabama Huntsville
RSS= remote sensing system

Both ( infact all ) get their data from the same source satellite owned by nasa
It's all in the algorithms to decipher the data
They are not the same but the different temperatures are consistent as in rss is consistently the same amount above UAH numbers.

But all are not agreeing with the models .27°C per decade rise .

RSS data used to be the choice of those who dismissed climate science until Roy Spencer adjusted his temperatures downward with Version 6.0. Now UAH is preferred.

Where did you dig up " the models .27°C per decade rise "? The models run different assumptions.

Results from a wide range of climate model simulations suggest that our planet’s average temperature could be between 2 and 9.7°F (1.1 to 5.4°C) warmer in 2100 than it is today.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...re-projections


Meanwhile RSS trends show warming.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

UAH = University of Alabama Huntsville
RSS= remote sensing system

Both ( infact all ) get their data from the same source satellite owned by nasa
It's all in the algorithms to decipher the data
They are not the same but the different temperatures are consistent as in rss is consistently the same amount above UAH numbers.

But all are not agreeing with the models .27°C per decade rise .

Seems to be some hair splitting going on. .27°C is a minuscule measurement to discern. Of course algorithms can be highly subjective. This is a big problem with climate predictions. They are all done by computer modelling. Computer modelling is highly subjective. The writers of code and tweak it according to the results that they want. They can omit factors that have big influence on results too.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No they merely duplicated his squed report in getting their own thieves approved same as he did .

That is a vacuous unsubstantiated assertion.

What part of " Different groups of researchers. Different data sets. Different Methodologies." do you not understand?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS data used to be the choice of those who dismissed climate science until Roy Spencer adjusted his temperatures downward with Version 6.0. Now UAH is preferred.

Where did you dig up " the models .27°C per decade rise "? The models run different assumptions.


https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...re-projections


Meanwhile RSS trends show warming.

Proves nothing. The midieval warming period would have shown a warming trend too. But nobody was burning oil and coal at the time. No need to panic. The natural cooling cycle will kick in. All that CO2 that has been liberated from the sea while the world emerged from the little ice age will redisolve as the sea cools again. Climate is naturally dynamic without our help.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Of course algorithms can be highly subjective.

LOL. You haven't a clue what an algorithm is.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

LOL. You haven't a clue what an algorithm is.

Complex formulas can have built in biases to achieve an intended result.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Proves nothing. The midieval (sic) warming period would have shown a warming trend too. But nobody was burning oil and coal at the time. No need to panic. The natural cooling cycle will kick in. All that CO2 that has been liberated from the sea while the world emerged from the little ice age will redisolve as the sea cools again. Climate is naturally dynamic without our help.

The Medieval Warming Period was not global. It was described by Hubert Lamb using anecdotal data from Central England, which is neither temporally or spatially representative of the rest of the Earth.

Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

Neukom, R., Steiger, N., Gómez-Navarro, J.J. et al. No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era. Nature 571, 550–554 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

The increase in CO2 is not from the oceans. Carbon isotope analysis of the ratios of C14, C13, and C12 attribute the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over that past 2.5 centuries to the burning of fossil fuels.

The most basic reason is that fossil fuels—the equivalent of millions of years of plant growth—are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts as high and as quickly as they have risen. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS data used to be the choice of those who dismissed climate science until Roy Spencer adjusted his temperatures downward with Version 6.0. Now UAH is preferred.

Where did you dig up " the models .27°C per decade rise "? The models run different assumptions.


https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...re-projections


Meanwhile RSS trends show warming.

Here

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.

Check your URL

This site can’t be reached
Check if there is a typo in iwasnotssl-www.drroyspencer.com.
If spelling is correct, try running Windows Network Diagnostics.
DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Complex formulas can have built in biases to achieve an intended result.

That's different from being "subjective".