Since I've proven you're a fucking foreign pussy, so much for what you say I won't do. Looks like you pissed into the wind and got wet as we say over here.
A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Since I've proven you're a fucking foreign pussy, so much for what you say I won't do. Looks like you pissed into the wind and got wet as we say over here.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Taichi, I was being sarcastic to Tom.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Did this SIMULATION take into account how farmlands are now being affected by INCREASES in extreme weather patterns. Think, man, THINK...longer, warmer summers mean MORE crop eating insects....also, you increase the risk of drought, tornados, etc., etc. These weather patterns are HAPPENING NOW....not a simulation.
GMO plants are NOT the answer, as they are NOT HEALTHY to the human condition in the long run...or the ecosystem that has to do with run off water contaminated by more potent insecticides for the GMO plants.
You keep carrying water for stupid corp heads only interested in profit....stop it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
My bad. Apologies.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I can't stay and play all the time, chuckles....got a life to tend to. See my answer today. The only awkward thing here is your insipid stubbornness to concede even the smallest point.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So you seemingly don't care about how people are going to be fed in Africa or Asia in future, is that it? Now you are going on about GMOs and insects yet that article makes no mention of them. Red herrings, which do not address the core issue of how over 9 billion mouths are to be fed.
Higher CO2 concentrations result in higher crop yields and also increase water-use efficiency, due to the stomata not opening as wide, resulting in lower levels of transpiration by plants. Both food and water shortages are going to be key worries in the future, yet you offer no answers only leftist twaddle.
https:///goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As usual, the right wing/corporate wonk blinders you wear gives you an intellectual myopia on the subject. Observe and learn: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
While enhanced CO2 creates an initial growth spurt in many trees and plants, their growth subsequently flattens and their food and nutrition value plummets. As enhanced carbon dioxide stresses plant metabolisms, they become more prone to disease, insect attacks and fires.
Spare me the faux concern about people in Africa and Asia....that's the BS Monsanto and company shovel in order to shove their products down the throats of what they only see as a new exploitable market. But not everyone is being suckered: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2371675.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/24/gm-crops-african-farmers
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy fuck, I give you a link to NASA and you give me a link to Skeptical Science run by those shysters John Cook, he of the 97% consensus bullshit, and Dana Nutterelli. I am sorry but you just have no credibility on this issue.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Do you know what consensus climate science is? It's something no one really believes in, will go along with others like them supporting it, and when it's proven false, run from it like a welfare leech offered a job.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Holy fuck, you didn't even read the article, and cannot dispute the information in Skeptical Science that is DOCUMENTED AND VALIDATED via links within the article. You should also read your NASA link more carefully, as it alludes to what is contained in the Skeptical Science article.
And I noted that you didn't DARE touch the information in the other links regarding Africa and crops from the BBC and The Guardian.
Like I said, you're just a right wing/corporate wonk wearing blinders that gives you an intellectual myopia on the subject. Dismissing information without reading it is called willful ignorance....defending such as you do is just insipid stubbornness. Get back to me when you have the cojones to discuss content and not just head lines or by lines.
Talk about a massive pile of gobbledygook....
Here, we present sea level rise (SLR) projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) storylines and different year-2100 radiative forcing targets (FTs). Future SLR is estimated with a comprehensive SLR emulator that accounts for Antarctic rapid discharge from hydrofracturing and ice cliff instability. Across all baseline scenario realizations (no dedicated climate mitigation), we find 2100 median SLR relative to 1986–2005 of 89 cm (likely range: 57–130 cm) for SSP1, 105 cm (73–150 cm) for SSP2, 105 cm (75–147 cm) for SSP3, 93 cm (63–133 cm) for SSP4, and 132 cm (95–189 cm) for SSP5. The 2100 sea level responses for combined SSP-FT scenarios are dominated by the mitigation targets and yield median estimates of 52 cm (34–75 cm) for FT 2.6 Wm−2, 62 cm (40–96 cm) for FT 3.4 Wm−2, 75 cm (47–113 cm) for FT 4.5 Wm−2, and 91 cm (61–132 cm) for FT 6.0 Wm−2. Average 2081–2100 annual SLR rates are 5 mm yr−1 and 19 mm yr−1 for FT 2.6 Wm−2 and the baseline scenarios, respectively. Our model setup allows linking scenario-specific emission and socioeconomic indicators to projected SLR. We find that 2100 median SSP SLR projections could be limited to around 50 cm if 2050 cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial stay below 850 GtC, with a global coal phase-out nearly completed by that time. For SSP mitigation scenarios, a 2050 carbon price of 100 US$2005 tCO2 −1 would correspond to a median 2100 SLR of around 65 cm. Our results confirm that rapid and early emission reductions are essential for limiting 2100 SLR.
Talk about a massive pile of gobbledygook....
Here, we present sea level rise (SLR) projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) storylines and different year-2100 radiative forcing targets (FTs). Future SLR is estimated with a comprehensive SLR emulator that accounts for Antarctic rapid discharge from hydrofracturing and ice cliff instability. Across all baseline scenario realizations (no dedicated climate mitigation), we find 2100 median SLR relative to 1986–2005 of 89 cm (likely range: 57–130 cm) for SSP1, 105 cm (73–150 cm) for SSP2, 105 cm (75–147 cm) for SSP3, 93 cm (63–133 cm) for SSP4, and 132 cm (95–189 cm) for SSP5. The 2100 sea level responses for combined SSP-FT scenarios are dominated by the mitigation targets and yield median estimates of 52 cm (34–75 cm) for FT 2.6 Wm−2, 62 cm (40–96 cm) for FT 3.4 Wm−2, 75 cm (47–113 cm) for FT 4.5 Wm−2, and 91 cm (61–132 cm) for FT 6.0 Wm−2. Average 2081–2100 annual SLR rates are 5 mm yr−1 and 19 mm yr−1 for FT 2.6 Wm−2 and the baseline scenarios, respectively. Our model setup allows linking scenario-specific emission and socioeconomic indicators to projected SLR. We find that 2100 median SSP SLR projections could be limited to around 50 cm if 2050 cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial stay below 850 GtC, with a global coal phase-out nearly completed by that time. For SSP mitigation scenarios, a 2050 carbon price of 100 US$2005 tCO2 −1 would correspond to a median 2100 SLR of around 65 cm. Our results confirm that rapid and early emission reductions are essential for limiting 2100 SLR.
Sorry this stuff is too complicated for you. Let me dumb it down to your bacteria level brain power. In the past icebergs collapsed and the seas rose. The architecture and fragility of the some notable icebergs are discussed. Some place off Texas shows coral that creates shapes that are similar to what they did during a previous epochal sea level rise as they try to keep up so they can have some light. Finally, some projections are made about sea level rise in the next 80 years supposing we don't do anything
about greenhouse gas like Dumpy the Orange Clown and you scummy degenerates desire.
Carry on, duncecap.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is attempting to discuss different scenarios dependent on the various Representation Concentration Pathways (RCP) outlined in IPCC AR5. Curiously they haven't mentioned RCP 8.5, the so called business as usual scenario, much beloved by climate alarmists. Suffice to say it is mostly garbage and not to be taken seriously except by fools like McAwful.Talk about a massive pile of gobbledygook....
Here, we present sea level rise (SLR) projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) storylines and different year-2100 radiative forcing targets (FTs). Future SLR is estimated with a comprehensive SLR emulator that accounts for Antarctic rapid discharge from hydrofracturing and ice cliff instability. Across all baseline scenario realizations (no dedicated climate mitigation), we find 2100 median SLR relative to 1986–2005 of 89 cm (likely range: 57–130 cm) for SSP1, 105 cm (73–150 cm) for SSP2, 105 cm (75–147 cm) for SSP3, 93 cm (63–133 cm) for SSP4, and 132 cm (95–189 cm) for SSP5. The 2100 sea level responses for combined SSP-FT scenarios are dominated by the mitigation targets and yield median estimates of 52 cm (34–75 cm) for FT 2.6 Wm−2, 62 cm (40–96 cm) for FT 3.4 Wm−2, 75 cm (47–113 cm) for FT 4.5 Wm−2, and 91 cm (61–132 cm) for FT 6.0 Wm−2. Average 2081–2100 annual SLR rates are 5 mm yr−1 and 19 mm yr−1 for FT 2.6 Wm−2 and the baseline scenarios, respectively. Our model setup allows linking scenario-specific emission and socioeconomic indicators to projected SLR. We find that 2100 median SSP SLR projections could be limited to around 50 cm if 2050 cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial stay below 850 GtC, with a global coal phase-out nearly completed by that time. For SSP mitigation scenarios, a 2050 carbon price of 100 US$2005 tCO2 −1 would correspond to a median 2100 SLR of around 65 cm. Our results confirm that rapid and early emission reductions are essential for limiting 2100 SLR.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This explains current thinking on climate change as well as anything.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I have already told you that I have no time for that contemptible website run by John Cook and Dana Nutterelli. The BBC and Guardian are no better on climate issues, in fact Nutterelli used to write hatchet job pieces in the Guardian.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Wrong again shit for brains; it was too stupid. But gullible commie loving idiots like you gulp this stupidity like Kool aid .
Well, you are the champion of dumb.
In other words, man had nothing to do with past global warming events. Dunce.
Yes; and they're just as moronic as claims that man can cause climate change.
Awwww, you're .....
UNHINGED, TRIGGERED, and STUPID!!
More irony from a moron on steroids.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Translation: another intellectually impotent right wing sock puppet lamely trying defend his willful ignorance. He's done, folks...let him bark to the wind.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Psst -- That's Shit-Shaper; he just changed his name. Again. Same moron though.
I sure hope Havany Poon? finds what he needs.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
OK mate, have your own way, still at least you didn't mention the chronology of the posts.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk