Kiritimati Atoll: The Largest Coral Atoll In The World Lost 80 Percent Of Its Coral To Bleaching in

[eagle1462010]

I haven't noticed the ocean getting warmer

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

The oceans are taking in most of the heat.

You do realize this is just 0.002 deg C, over 70 years, don't you?

No, I don't

Good math Billy. Why don't you show us your work.

The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts

 

[eagle1462010]

Hockey Stick...............LOL..........how they manipulated data to hide a decline in temperature to bring you the Hockey Stick.

aka the erased the decline.............then used new methods to say we are all going to die.................

 

[eagle1462010]

The Decline They Hid: the Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction | Evolution News

Real climate scientists are sifting out the details of the data to which CRU director and warmist Phil Jones applied fellow warmist Michael Mann’s ‘Nature trick…to hide the decline…’.
The hidden data is that of Keith Briffa, a fellow climate scientist (and warmist) at East Anglia. Briffa compiled tree-ring data to obtain global temperature estimates back to 1400. But there was a problem with the tree-ring data, from the warmist perspective. The tree ring data showed pronounced cooling beginning in the mid-20th century. This was at variance with some ground temperature measurements (so we are told- the actual raw data from the ground stations was ‘accidently’ thrown in the garbage in the 1980’s, and all we have are ‘modified’ data from the CRU scientists themselves.)
So the method that the warmist climate scientists used to estimate temperatures over the past millenium or so (tree ring data) did not show warming that correlated with rising CO2. This leaves a couple of possibilities, neither favorable to the warmist hypothesis. Either the tree ring data in the 20th century that was inconsistent with temperature recordings meant that the older tree ring data was unreliable (eliminating the argument that the warming was unprecedented) or the temperature recordings were inaccurate (perhaps from the heat island effect, in which sensors situated near growing urban areas give spurriously high readings) and rising CO2 didn’t cause warming.
What to do?
Simple. Delete the tree rign data beginning in the mid-20th century, when the cooling became pronounced, and use (already CRU ‘modified’) ground station data more supportive of the warmist hypothesis in it’s place.
Climate scientist and skeptic Steve McIntyre:

THEY LIED..........AND WERE BUSTED FOR IT.

 

[eagle1462010]

NOAA weather station. LOL Used to collect data.......Wonder is the asphalt could change the data........or perhaps today a sudden spike happens......Oh sorry they were cooking Steaks on the grill.

Lets put it near a incandescent bulb..............nice data there.

 

[Crick]

NOAA weather station. LOL Used to collect data.......Wonder is the asphalt could change the data........or perhaps today a sudden spike happens......Oh sorry they were cooking Steaks on the grill.

I wonder if the greenery to the right could have lowered the data. And I highly doubt anyone is cooking in that location. Looks like storage, like the rest of the junk.

Lets put it near a incandescent bulb..............nice data there.

Let's put it in a well ventilated space not particularly close to a light that is only used when the station is being read at night.

 

[eagle1462010]

NOAA weather station. LOL Used to collect data.......Wonder is the asphalt could change the data........or perhaps today a sudden spike happens......Oh sorry they were cooking Steaks on the grill.

I wonder if the greenery to the right could have lowered the data. And I highly doubt anyone is cooking in that location. Looks like storage, like the rest of the junk.

Lets put it near a incandescent bulb..............nice data there.

Let's put it in a well ventilated space not particularly close to a light that is only used when the station is being read at night.

They were using tainted data..............some near furnace exhaust as well.............

The Hockey Stick was a lie......................and using baselines that show increases were decided how.................

The GREEN MACHINE has been about one thing.........

MONEY.

 

[Crick]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

How the fuck do you "fight against" AGW?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

How the fuck do you "fight against" AGW?

Hockey sticks?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money

Is there any plan to fight AGW that doesn't include billions in grants for studies and trillions in extra taxes for politicians?

If they really thought it was a serious threat, they'd push for a couple of hundred new nuclear power plants.
But, for some reason, they don't like large amounts of reliable power.

 

[Crick]

I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.

Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.

Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.

Fukushima and Chernobyl were poorly designed reactors, which is a major factor in their failure.

 

[Crick]

Fukushima was not poorly designed or constructed. In hindsight, it was very poorly sited. Chernobyl was junk. Three Mile Island was not and, though it killed no one, it did catastrophically fail. All technology has risks. Nuclear has large ones and needs to be used with the utmost care. But its zero carbon footprint makes it a worthwhile endeavour.

I support increased use of nuclear power, but I also support even more increased use of alternative energy sources: wind, solarPV, solarThermal, hydro, geothermal, OTEC, etc.

Perhaps we ought to get back to coral bleaching.

What do you think the results would be if the world lost, say, 75% of its coral reefs?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.

Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.

Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.

If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.

If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -

Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.

That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Climate scientists do not study nuclear power stations. Their opinions on the matter are no more pertinent than yours or mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climate scientists do not study nuclear power stations. Their opinions on the matter are no more pertinent than yours or mine.

Climate scientists do not study nuclear power stations.

Or wind power, solar power, tax policy or a million other things.

Which is why, when they make their recommendations about them, or when others use their "findings" to make those recommendations, I feel a need to resist.

 

[Crick]

Using up land does not make it less reliable. Solar and wind require no fuel.

 

[Old Rocks]

I haven't noticed the ocean getting warmer

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

The oceans are taking in most of the heat.

That is the whole ocean, not the LOCAL areas where the Corals actually grow.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for warmists to acknowledge that early in the Holocene, the Ocean waters were a LOT warmer than they are now, yet Corals thrived anyway. Also how did they survive the massive meltwater pulses that lasted for centuries at the early days of this interglacial period when Sea Level leaped upwards at a rapid pace.................

Waiting.... waiting......................................

And I am still waiting for dumb fucks like you to realize there is a vast difference between a rapid change, and one that occurs at a much slower rate. The slower rate gives the organisms time to adjust.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money

Is there any plan to fight AGW that doesn't include billions in grants for studies and trillions in extra taxes for politicians?

If they really thought it was a serious threat, they'd push for a couple of hundred new nuclear power plants.
But, for some reason, they don't like large amounts of reliable power.

That is pure idiocy. Far too expensive. Renewables, solar and wind, are now the cheapest. Grid scale storage, being installed as we post, will make renewables 24/7.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?

How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money

Is there any plan to fight AGW that doesn't include billions in grants for studies and trillions in extra taxes for politicians?

If they really thought it was a serious threat, they'd push for a couple of hundred new nuclear power plants.
But, for some reason, they don't like large amounts of reliable power.

Are there any nukes insured by private insurers? So we, the taxpayer, pay for all of that. Who pays for all the security at the nukes. We, the taxpayer. And who pays for the very expensive power from the nukes, we, the consumers of the electricity. The hell with nukes.