US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You do.

Really?? That's nothing compared to some of the things said to me over the years.

Being a zealot to me means your extra pationate about your position whether right or not is immaterial .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A chemistry lesson for you.


https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

CO2 is the driver H2) is an amplifier.

What NASA says about water vapor and CO2


https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...nhouse-effect/

Amazing that NASA contradicts themselves and thinks that nobody will notice.


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV





It is amazing how NASA, who should know better, literally tell one side of the story in the first quote. If cloud cover increases due to increased water vapor, then more sunlight will be reflected back into space from the upper surfaces of the increased cloud coverage. This is negative feed back that will counter act any warming trend that would cause it. Increased water vapor will actually cause a reaction to reduce world temperatures, not increase them. Does anyone bother to notice that when clouds drift overhead, that the temperature decreases? Even small children who have not learned any formal science are aware of this.


NASA has destroyed their credibility with bold predictions that have proven wrong. "James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies beginning in 1988 predicted major droughts and up to six feet of sea level rise in the 1990s. One reporter recalled that in the late 1980s, he asked Hansen in his Manhattan office whether anything in the window would look different in 20 years. Hansen replied, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.”"
-Washington Examiner
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute



Advanced science is fantastic. But much learning can make one mad. Long, highly technical studies can be summarized in a few words. One needs to step back and consider the basics and look at the failures of the prognosticators. The climate change crowd has proven themselves wrong many times in the past. But failed predictions get no attention from media and government. There are always new ones that are often more shocking than the old forgotten failures. Why would anyone start believing them now?

[Ericson38]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
My standard link for those who do not understand that CO2 is a driver and H2O is an amplifier.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html


Here's mine-

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10....os.20210502.12

The current IPC predictions to C02 doubling run from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C.

My reference states its more like 0.5 deg K, and that there is no thermal run-away tipping point to be afraid of.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

NASA has destroyed their credibility with bold predictions that have proven wrong. "James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies beginning in 1988 predicted major droughts and up to six feet of sea level rise in the 1990s. One reporter recalled that in the late 1980s, he asked Hansen in his Manhattan office whether anything in the window would look different in 20 years. Hansen replied, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.”"
-Washington Examiner
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Hansen's prediction was based on a doubling of CO2. That has not happened.

James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe**d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio**n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:

"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Amazing that NASA contradicts themselves and thinks that nobody will notice.


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV







It is amazing how NASA, who should know better, literally tell one side of the story in the first quote. If cloud cover increases due to increased water vapor, then more sunlight will be reflected back into space from the upper surfaces of the increased cloud coverage. This is negative feed back that will counter act any warming trend that would cause it. Increased water vapor will actually cause a reaction to reduce world temperatures, not increase them. Does anyone bother to notice that when clouds drift overhead, that the temperature decreases? Even small children who have not learned any formal science are aware of this.


NASA has destroyed their credibility with bold predictions that have proven wrong. "James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies beginning in 1988 predicted major droughts and up to six feet of sea level rise in the 1990s. One reporter recalled that in the late 1980s, he asked Hansen in his Manhattan office whether anything in the window would look different in 20 years. Hansen replied, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.”"
-Washington Examiner
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute



Advanced science is fantastic. But much learning can make one mad. Long, highly technical studies can be summarized in a few words. One needs to step back and consider the basics and look at the failures of the prognosticators. The climate change crowd has proven themselves wrong many times in the past. But failed predictions get no attention from media and government. There are always new ones that are often more shocking than the old forgotten failures. Why would anyone start believing them now?

When clear its much colder than with cloud cover.
Clouds trap warm air, night sky effect without clouds, cool the air
Your claims don't really pan out in a total sense.
Like climate, a few observations do not paint a Complete picture.
CO2 is like a blanket, but doesn't completely cover our atmosphere, only portions.
Not going to argue little points to answer the Big Questions.
Boatyarddog

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

[B]

Here's mine-

The Impact of CO₂, H₂O and Other “Greenhouse Gasesâ€� on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures :: Science Publishing Group

Three authors with no expertise in climate science publish in a pay-to-publish predatory journal. Yep, that is credible.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Hansen's prediction was based on a doubling of CO2. That has not happened.

James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe**d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio**n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:

"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

Please do not try to defend the indefensible. James Hansen predicted a drastic rise of sea level that never happened. Like so many climate "experts" who have made shocking forecasts, he was wrong. Any prophet who is wrong discredits himself and all others on his side of the discussion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

CO2 is like a blanket, but doesn't completely cover our atmosphere, only portions.

CO2 is a very well-mixed gas and does cover the entire planet.

https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04

Look carefully at the legend. It varies 18 ppm.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Please do not try to defend the indefensible. James Hansen predicted a drastic rise of sea level that never happened. Like so many climate "experts" who have made shocking forecasts, he was wrong. Any prophet who is wrong discredits himself and all others on his side of the discussion.

Twisting words does not make your case. You quoted someone who wasnot in the interview. I quoted the two persons who were in the interview.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Please do not try to defend the indefensible. James Hansen predicted a drastic rise of sea level that never happened. Like so many climate "experts" who have made shocking forecasts, he was wrong. Any prophet who is wrong discredits himself and all others on his side of the discussion.

Hansen's prediction from 1988 with observed data.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

When clear its much colder than with cloud cover.
Clouds trap warm air, night sky effect without clouds, cool the air
Your claims don't really pan out in a total sense.
Like climate, a few observations do not paint a Complete picture.
CO2 is like a blanket, but doesn't completely cover our atmosphere, only portions.
Not going to argue little points to answer the Big Questions.
Boatyarddog

You neglect the fact that increased cloud cover causes increased reflection of sunlight back into space. The negates the effect of heat trapping. The heat trapping effect only traps heat that has already reached the surface, and this is only a portion of total sunlight that reaches the atmosphere. Much sunlight is bounced back into space by the upper cloud surfaces.


The climate change cultists need to examine the clouds that they have their heads in.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

When clear its much colder than with cloud cover.
Clouds trap warm air, night sky effect without clouds, cool the air
Your claims don't really pan out in a total sense.
Like climate, a few observations do not paint a Complete picture.
CO2 is like a blanket, but doesn't completely cover our atmosphere, only portions.
Not going to argue little points to answer the Big Questions.
Boatyarddog

It's not a well distributed gas either ( co2) contrary to what you have been told

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

You neglect the fact that increased cloud cover causes increased reflection of sunlight back into space. The negates the effect of heat trapping. The heat trapping effect only traps heat that has already reached the surface, and this is only a portion of total sunlight that reaches the atmosphere. Much sunlight is bounced back into space by the upper cloud surfaces.


The climate change cultists need to examine the clouds that they have their heads in.

You have much to learn, Grasshopper

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstu...of_Clouds.html

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 is a very well-mixed gas and does cover the entire planet.

https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04

Look carefully at the legend. It varies 18 ppm.

Actually it can vary as much as 60ppm across the planet.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...52.032,-25.845

The second is close to you isn't it ?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...115.087,53.162

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It's not a well distributed gas either ( co2) contrary to what you have been told

CO2 is a very well-mixed gas and does cover the entire planet.

https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04

Look carefully at the legend. It varies 18 ppm, less than 5%.