Ocean rise and ice melt accelerating....

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you test it?

By collecting data for decades, of course. You then analyze it to test the hypothesis of whether warmer air and water strengthens the mechanisms which cause storms to stall.

PRO TIP: Scientists thought of this before you did. CRAZY, huh? Crazy that a bunch of people who dedicate their lives to these fields of science thought of this before you did, eh?

Warm Oceans Can Cause Storms to Linger

Hey Toddster Do you act this way in other fields of academia, or regarding other endeavors? For example, are you under the delusion that you can beat up Floyd Mayweather, or that you can beat Garry Kasparov in chess?

By collecting data for decades, of course.

Excellent. CO2 levels have been constantly rising, so "stall time" must be getting higher, decade by decade.

Should be pretty easy to show. Can't wait to see the paper.

I hope it's more rigorous than 75/77.........

Hey Toddster Do you act this way in other fields of academia, or regarding other endeavors?

If I knew of any other fields that wanted us to waste trillions of dollars on less reliable forms of energy, I'd probably be as skeptical of those field as I am of AGW.

are you under the delusion that you can ... beat Garry Kasparov in chess?

Nah, I never got my rating over 2000 USCF.

 

[SSDD]

You do know it will happen regardless, if man was here or not right??????

No, I don't know that, because the evidence shows that we are the main driver of the current, rapid warming.

Which evidence is that? You keep talking about the evidence this and the evidence that...and when I ask for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports your claim that we are causing the warming rather than natural variability, the best you can manage is some name calling, one of a standard list of logical fallacies, or silence...what the hell? Either you have seen this evidence or you have not...if you have, then show me a single piece of it...if you haven't then haul your bullshit off to somewhere else...we have enough purveyors of it here already...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Excellent. CO2 levels have been constantly rising, so "stall time" must be getting higher, decade by decade.

No, that would not follow, and you embarrass yourself to say so. You really have no grasp of the basic principles of any of this.

If I knew of any other fields that wanted us to waste trillions of dollars on less reliable forms of energy, I'd probably be as skeptical of those field as I am of AGW.

You are not "skeptical", and you embarrass yourself again to so blatantly misuse what should be a simple word in your native language. Doubt and denial are not, "skepticism". And you further prove it by using the word "waste", since doing so means have already assumed the factoid which you ostensibly claim as a possible conclusion to your skepticism. That's rather embarrassing behavior for an adult.

Nah, I never got my rating over 2000 USCF.

I am sure you did not. Now, remember .... your rating in this topic is the equivalent of about a -200 USCF. Yes todd, you actually have managed to get yourself in a position where you know LESS than nothing about this topic. You are in possession of no correct information whatsoever, and the things you think you know are all incorrect. It would take a teacher a year just to get you back to zero. That means it would take a teacher a year just to educate you to the level of a newborn baby on this topic. Think about that, troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which evidence is that?

All of it... thanks for asking!

But whenever you and your band of ignorant cacklers want to get together and publish some science, have at it. *snicker*

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent. CO2 levels have been constantly rising, so "stall time" must be getting higher, decade by decade.

No, that would not follow, and you embarrass yourself to say so. You really have no grasp of the basic principles of any of this.

If I knew of any other fields that wanted us to waste trillions of dollars on less reliable forms of energy, I'd probably be as skeptical of those field as I am of AGW.

You are not "skeptical", and you embarrass yourself again to so blatantly misuse what should be a simple word in your native language. Doubt and denial are not, "skepticism". And you further prove it by using the word "waste", since doing so means have already assumed the factoid which you ostensibly claim as a possible conclusion to your skepticism. That's rather embarrassing behavior for an adult.

Nah, I never got my rating over 2000 USCF.

I am sure you did not. Now, remember .... your rating in this topic is the equivalent of about a -200 USCF. Yes todd, you actually have managed to get yourself in a position where you know LESS than nothing about this topic. You are in possession of no correct information whatsoever, and the things you think you know are all incorrect. It would take a teacher a year just to get you back to zero. That means it would take a teacher a year just to educate you to the level of a newborn baby on this topic. Think about that, troll.

No, that would not follow,

Cool. So what's the range of CO2 that causes stall time to increase?
Why do increases above that range cause stall times to decrease?

You really have no grasp of the basic principles of any of this.

I'm all ears.

You are not "skeptical"

I'm extremely skeptical.

You are in possession of no correct information whatsoever,

AGW causes droughts, floods, higher temperatures, colder temperatures and weather "weirding".
What other information is there?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cool. So what's the range of CO2 that causes stall time to increase?

I don't know.. Do you often turn to message boards of laymen for answers on scientific topics? well, I guess that WOULD explain your abject ignorance, here.

I'm all ears.

Great! I can direct you to some great sources. You could start by reading one of the articles posted right here in this thread that eiether answer your questions or help you understand why they are stupid questions.

I'm extremely skeptical.

False. In this topic, you are not being skeptical. A skeptical person evaluates the evidence as well as he can. You haven't made the slightest efoort to do this. You come here and play stupid and beg for a layman on a message board to spoonfeed you. A skeptic does not start with is mind made up, as your circular bullshit shows is true of you.

AGW causes droughts, floods, higher temperatures, colder temperatures and weather "weirding".
What other information is there?

None, of course! You pretty much just taught us all 20 years of oceanography, geology, chemistry, physics, and meteorology! And to think all these people waste their entire lives doing "empirical science"... haha, suckers...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cool. So what's the range of CO2 that causes stall time to increase?

I don't know.. Do you often turn to message boards of laymen for answers on scientific topics? well, I guess that WOULD explain your abject ignorance, here.

I'm all ears.

Great! I can direct you to some great sources. You could start by reading one of the articles posted right here in this thread that eiether answer your questions or help you understand why they are stupid questions.

I'm extremely skeptical.

False. In this topic, you are not being skeptical. A skeptical person evaluates the evidence as well as he can. You haven't made the slightest efoort to do this. You come here and play stupid and beg for a layman on a message board to spoonfeed you. A skeptic does not start with is mind made up, as your circular bullshit shows is true of you.

AGW causes droughts, floods, higher temperatures, colder temperatures and weather "weirding".
What other information is there?

None, of course! You pretty much just taught us all 20 years of oceanography, geology, chemistry, physics, and meteorology! And to think all these people waste their entire lives doing "empirical science"... haha, suckers...

I don't know..

So when you claimed, "No, that would not follow", you were pulling that out of your ass.

A skeptical person evaluates the evidence as well as he can.

The evidence of AGW I've seen is unfalsifiable.
Drought...AGW
Floods...AGW
Forest fires...AGW
Hotter...AGW
Colder...AGW
More hurricanes...AGW
Fewer hurricanes...AGW

You guys need to find some better evidence.

And to think all these people waste their entire lives doing "empirical science"

If only the warmers were doing that. Then they wouldn't need to keep adjusting data collected decades ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So when you claimed, "No, that would not follow", you were pulling that out of your ass.

That doesn't follow from me not knowing the range you asked about. To say something contributes to making something bigger or more intense, or even claiming it in one instance, is not the same as claiming to know exactly how much in any one instance or claiming that it would cause the clear signal you are looking for. again, if you were honestly asking questions (which you are not), you would go to the source.

If only the warmers were doing that.

haha, it always comes back to this with you losers... the global scientific community are generally liars and/or incompetent. fascinating! That is some serious, tinfoil-hat 'spiracy shit. And not only is THAT true... but to think all of them have been outsmarted by an uneducated slob like you with no education or experience in any of their fields of work?!

Amazing!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hurricane Harvey stalled, dumped 60 inches of rain. Nothing to do with CO2.

You could not possibly know the truth of that, which means it is you who sounds like the idiot. warmer oceans mean more energetic hurricanes. That is a fact we know. We have warmed our oceans via our emissions. That is also a fact we know. It is fair to say that climate change affects every single hurricane. Every single one.

You could not possibly know the truth of that

Feel free to post the CO2 mechanism that caused the hurricane to stall.

Easily done.



Not that you will ever bother to actually listen to what a real scientist has to say. You prefer the spew by obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords.

Wow, nearly 2 hours to learn how CO2 caused this particular hurricane to stall?
Any hint as to when the good part starts...ends?

My, my, you label me as the dummy, yet you cannot listen to a two hour lecture? One in which you can pause at any time for a cup of coffee, or bathroom break. I do find you imbecilic 'Conservatives' to have a concentration span that only can do a 90 second commercial. I have attended many lectures in college that lasted three hours. And were in the technocalese of that discipline, requiring prodicus notes. Surely you can outdo an old liberal?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow, nearly 2 hours to learn how CO2 caused this particular hurricane to stall?

Spot on Trollster! I mean, if these scientists can't condense 25 years of work into a blurb that an uneducated slob like you can understand...why, they are just useless!

In these 2 hours there is proof that if only CO2 were 280 PPM, there would have been no flooding?
Or if it were 350 PPM, the rainfall would have been 30 inches instead of 50?
Help a poor uneducated slob.....please, kind sir.

There is no help for a willfully ignorant asshole like you. And, if you want an answer to your question, watch the lecture. Not that you will, you love your ignorance far too much to do that. And, like all your ilk, you are so fucking proud of your ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know. The claim was CO2 somehow caused a hurricane to stall.

No, the claim is the contribution could cause it to stall for longer, and/or cause more rain during the stall. You can clarify with him, whenever you want to take a pause from trolling.

The kind that would claim you can tell how much damage will be caused if we don't take dramatic steps to reduce CO2.

No scientist is claiming to know EXACTLY how much damage can be prevented. Only weak sauce trolls like you talk about that stupid shit, because you have to invent low-hanging fruit for yourselves to pick. Hopefully, one day, you have an epiphany and realize that the reason you don't understand any of this is because you are lazy and ignorant (and maybe stupid, not sure), not because people aren't saying it "the right way"

No, the claim is the contribution could cause it to stall for longer,

Of course, an unprovable, untestable claim.

and/or cause more rain during the stall.

Of course. Current levels caused 50 inches. Lower levels would have caused less. Obviously.

Not at all, ignorant fool. We have seen many extreme weather events from stalled weather fronts since Dr. Francis first made her predictions concerning this effect in 2012. All you have in your arsenal of foolishness cannot change the observations of these events, nor there costs. In that same year, another Phd scientist made the prediction that such a storm and effect had a 30% probability of hitting Houston in this century. He specifically picked Houston because of prior weather data. His prediction was borne out last year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know. The claim was CO2 somehow caused a hurricane to stall.

No, the claim is the contribution could cause it to stall for longer, and/or cause more rain during the stall. You can clarify with him, whenever you want to take a pause from trolling.

The kind that would claim you can tell how much damage will be caused if we don't take dramatic steps to reduce CO2.

No scientist is claiming to know EXACTLY how much damage can be prevented. Only weak sauce trolls like you talk about that stupid shit, because you have to invent low-hanging fruit for yourselves to pick. Hopefully, one day, you have an epiphany and realize that the reason you don't understand any of this is because you are lazy and ignorant (and maybe stupid, not sure), not because people aren't saying it "the right way"

No, the claim is the contribution could cause it to stall for longer,

Of course, an unprovable, untestable claim.

and/or cause more rain during the stall.

Of course. Current levels caused 50 inches. Lower levels would have caused less. Obviously.

Not at all, ignorant fool. We have seen many extreme weather events from stalled weather fronts since Dr. Francis first made her predictions concerning this effect in 2012. All you have in your arsenal of foolishness cannot change the observations of these events, nor there costs. In that same year, another Phd scientist made the prediction that such a storm and effect had a 30% probability of hitting Houston in this century. He specifically picked Houston because of prior weather data. His prediction was borne out last year.

We have seen many extreme weather events from stalled weather fronts since Dr. Francis first made her predictions concerning this effect in 2012.

Never happened before.....DERP!

 

[Old Rocks]

It has happened many more times since 2000 than it did in a similar time period since we started recording weather. Asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has happened many more times since 2000 than it did in a similar time period since we started recording weather. Asshole.

Wow, 150 years of spotty data.

That's worth trillions in windmills. DERP!

 

[Old Rocks]

It has happened many more times since 2000 than it did in a similar time period since we started recording weather. Asshole.

Wow, 150 years of spotty data.

That's worth trillions in windmills. DERP!

Well no, silly ass. this is what is worth trillions in windmills.

This Texas town will get all of its energy from solar and wind

News that a Texas city is to be powered by 100-percent renewable energy sparked surprise in an oil-obsessed, Republican-dominated state where fossil fuels are king and climate change activists were described as “the equivalent of the flat-earthers” by U.S. Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

“I was called an Al Gore clone, a tree hugger,” says Jim Briggs, interim city manager of Georgetown, a community of about 50,000 people some 25 miles north of Austin.

Briggs, who was a key player in Georgetown’s decision to become the first city in the Lone Star State to be powered by 100-percent renewable energy, has worked for the city for 30 years. He wears a belt with shiny, silver decorations and a gold ring with a lone star motif, and is keen to point out that he is not some kind of California-style eco-warrior with a liberal agenda. In fact, he is a staunchly Texan pragmatist.

“I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” he says. “We didn’t do this to save the world — we did this to get a competitive rate and reduce the risk for our consumers.”

In many Texas cities, the electricity market is deregulated, meaning that customers choose from a dizzying variety of providers and plans. In Houston, for example, there are more than 70 plans that offer energy from entirely renewable sources.

That makes it easy to switch, so in a dynamic marketplace, providers tend to focus on the immediate future. This discourages the creation of renewable energy facilities, which require long-term investment to be viable. But in Georgetown, the city utility company has a monopoly.

When its staff examined their options last year, they discovered something that seemed remarkable, especially in Texas: Renewable energy was cheaper than non-renewable. And so last month, city officials finalized a deal with SunEdison, a giant multinational solar energy company. It means that by January 2017, all electricity within the city’s service area will come from wind and solar power.

That is why many nations and areas in the US are switching to windmills and solar panels. The green power that they are respecting has Franklin's face on it.

 

[skookerasbil]

It has happened many more times since 2000 than it did in a similar time period since we started recording weather. Asshole.

Wow, 150 years of spotty data.

That's worth trillions in windmills. DERP!

Well no, silly ass. this is what is worth trillions in windmills.

This Texas town will get all of its energy from solar and wind

News that a Texas city is to be powered by 100-percent renewable energy sparked surprise in an oil-obsessed, Republican-dominated state where fossil fuels are king and climate change activists were described as “the equivalent of the flat-earthers” by U.S. Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

“I was called an Al Gore clone, a tree hugger,” says Jim Briggs, interim city manager of Georgetown, a community of about 50,000 people some 25 miles north of Austin.

Briggs, who was a key player in Georgetown’s decision to become the first city in the Lone Star State to be powered by 100-percent renewable energy, has worked for the city for 30 years. He wears a belt with shiny, silver decorations and a gold ring with a lone star motif, and is keen to point out that he is not some kind of California-style eco-warrior with a liberal agenda. In fact, he is a staunchly Texan pragmatist.

“I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” he says. “We didn’t do this to save the world — we did this to get a competitive rate and reduce the risk for our consumers.”

In many Texas cities, the electricity market is deregulated, meaning that customers choose from a dizzying variety of providers and plans. In Houston, for example, there are more than 70 plans that offer energy from entirely renewable sources.

That makes it easy to switch, so in a dynamic marketplace, providers tend to focus on the immediate future. This discourages the creation of renewable energy facilities, which require long-term investment to be viable. But in Georgetown, the city utility company has a monopoly.

When its staff examined their options last year, they discovered something that seemed remarkable, especially in Texas: Renewable energy was cheaper than non-renewable. And so last month, city officials finalized a deal with SunEdison, a giant multinational solar energy company. It means that by January 2017, all electricity within the city’s service area will come from wind and solar power.

That is why many nations and areas in the US are switching to windmills and solar panels. The green power that they are respecting has Franklin's face on it.

But at a pace not dissimilar to watching a slug travel from New York to California.......and that's not even providing a speck of embellishment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now don't you wish you had a bank account that would increase at that rate?

 

[skookerasbil]

Now don't you wish you had a bank account that would increase at that rate?

Oh Gawd........forced again to use analogies to display progressive fakery.

A bogus graph..........because it doesn't compare wind to anything else except itself. A chick could tell everybody she got breast augmentation and that she was now big boobed, "My boobs are 100% bigger!" but if she went from being flat chested to an A cup, nobody is caring. Growth rates of renewables when compared to actual production of fossil fuel energy = an A cup. I guess some might take bows.......most wouldn't care. So the slug navigating across America from New York to California still applies with 100% certainty no matter how many fake graphs are posted up. Fake graphs only fool low information assholes out there.

 

[toobfreak]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115

Observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it - CNN

More accurate methods show us these things are happening faster than we thought. Now expected to pass 2 feet rise by 2100.

What, did another CNN anchor get in his tub and see the water rise and panic again? They can't tell me the weather two days from now but I'm supposed to believe they've got a handle on it 80 years from now. I don't own any ocean-front property and never thought it a good idea--- all those rich Malibu liberals live 8 feet from the ocean and I guess they never realized the ocean has been going up and down by all kinds of degrees for more than 4 billion years. Just nature doing its thang. Glug. Glug.

 

[SSDD]

Which evidence is that?

All of it... thanks for asking!

All bullshit all the time with you isn't it? Why not just admit that you can't produce a single shred of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...at least that way you only look like a political hack rather than a complete dupe.

But whenever you and your band of ignorant cacklers want to get together and publish some science, have at it. *snicker*

In case you haven't noticed, it is me who is asking for just a single piece of actual evidence...I am just asking for the science that you claim exists in copious quantities...You suggest that I publish but I am not making any claim whatsoever...I am just asking for the evidence upon which you base your position...apparently, there is none because you always have some reason for not posting any of it..not even a single shred.

What's the matter fort fun...don't want to get laughed at over what passes for evidence in that weak mind of yours? Is it that weak that you are just to embarrassed to show it in public? Must suck...

And I am not snickering at you...I am laughing out loud in your dupe face. For all your talk, you don't even have a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your belief.