An interesting visual. I note that the change is being displayed in degrees centigrade and wonder why climate scientists aren't using degrees kelvin for their research calculations.
For displaying an end result that would be correct, but the underlying calculations leading to that end result for each year, should be performed using positive numbers, should they not?For this particular graphic visualisation, it would be exactly the same if degrees kelvin were used. It is showing variation from the base year 1950 and as 1 degree kelvin variation is the same as a 1 degree centigrade variation, either scale would yield the same result.
Well I am sure that you will have googled it by now, or did you come back with absolute zero (those with knowledge of kelvin degrees will understand what is meant by this).
Any school child knows or should know what degrees K means. You seem to have been confused a bit yourself, Centigrade and Kelvin are the same scale with a gauge offset, so a 1 deg C increase is the same as a 1 deg K increase.
In trying to sound clever, orr makes herself unclear. However her intention to misrepresent is clear.
...
And yes cynic;
Your personal 'theory' posted in #7662. Is debunked by; to begin with Exxons CC work, and from there there's little need to go on. All that's needed is for you to prove Exxon's work wrong... Should be all in an afternoons work for you. Exxon are handing out cheque's to those that help with this very job.
All this will help you with your imagined fallacies in this from #7676 , see...
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(apologies to Sisyphos)
The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(apologies to Sisyphos)
Anyone see the piece on the Islands going under yesterday. I felt for the coconut trees being reduced to stumps, now out in the sea.
I bet China is making sure their island bases are built up high enough for the persistent rise in tides; no debates, just necessity.
Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.
That's why they lose credibility Noco.
Manipulation of facts to fit a narrative.
Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.
If you want to argue against the scientific opinion that sea levels are rising then you need to provide evidence that the islands are sinking.
.Australia's leaders 'wilfully blind' about climate change, says former NAB chief
Cameron Clyne says he doesn’t think anyone has ‘grasped quite how revolutionary’ the emergence of renewable energy will be
Oliver Milman
@olliemilman
Monday 3 August 2015 13.26 AEST
Australia’s political leaders are “wilfully blind” to the challenge of climate change, with the country at risk from an “economically reckless” reliance upon fossil fuels, the former head of the National Australia Bank has warned.
Cameron Clyne, who was chief executive of NAB from 2009 until he stood down last year, said he doesn’t “think any of us have grasped quite how revolutionary” the emergence of renewable energy will be, warning that Australia cannot continue to be wedded to carbon-heavy fuels such as coal.
“The truth is that Australia’s lack of diversification is economically reckless,” Clyne wrote in Fairfax newspapers. “Most of our electricity generation is reliant on coal; an overwhelming majority of our transport and a very large percentage of our export industries are reliant on fossil fuels.
"When you look at this, you would be blind to not see a myriad of looming business risks.”
Clyne wrote that falling global oil and coal prices, a dip in Chinese coal consumption owing to air pollution concerns, pressure on fossil fuel subsidies that have been estimated at $10m a minute and competition from solar and wind are leaving Australia’s fossil fuel assets at risk of being “stranded”.
“So you can be as angry as you like with environmentalists and “environmentalism” but from an economic point of view, it still wouldn’t make sense to be so heavily addicted to this polluting business as Australia is,” Clyne said.
“We know from history what happens when a business or a government sets its face against a change that is coming anyway. It’s usually not the politicians or the chief executives who end up at the unemployment office
Well I don't really know Noco and that thought had crossed my mind too, but the article was at pains to say the tides had been rising 10mm/annum. It wasn't an hysterical piece, although foreboding in the context that the island are apparently a bellweather for the rest of us, especially with sea frontage (I'm only about 50 metres from the shore and thinking of installing stainless steel stumps).
I'd be interested if you find anything about it. Islands include the Solomons and the Torres Straits also, so it's over a wide area.
Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.
Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.
Perhaps this link will explain the reasons why island sink rather than the sea rising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll
Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the Darwin Point. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.
Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct
As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef
As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside
Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an open lagoon
Sorry Rumpy . If you are Wayne you don't need to provide evidence. It's all self evident.
(And for God's sake don't talk about what's happening in Antartica/Greenland..)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?