• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_tajmahal said:
Climate goals cost $45 TRILLION by 2050.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-en...45-trillion-by-2050-iea-idUKL0348323120080603
Click to expand...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1979
Predictions of sea level rise reach $1T/yr by 2050, increasing beyond that. We'll hit break-even point probably around 2050 I'd wager, and it'd cost more to do nothing by then. And that's *just* sea level rise.

Breaking news: Advancing humanity at the cost of our environment is going to bite us in the ass, much worse if we do nothing.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1979
Predictions of sea level rise reach $1T/yr by 2050, increasing beyond that. We'll hit break-even point probably around 2050 I'd wager, and it'd cost more to do nothing by then. And that's *just* sea level rise.

Breaking news: Advancing humanity at the cost of our environment is going to bite us in the ass, much worse if we do nothing.
Click to expand...
You do know that sea level has been steady for 2 years now, the average is about 8 inch increase in SLR every 10 years? Either way i'm not concerned.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/
 
K1052 said:
Why are you posting a 9 year old article?

Also the IEA is much better at showing what happened than they've been at predicting basically anything.
Click to expand...

Because it sounds big and scary while ignoring that solar and wind have fallen dramatically in costs since the article was written. Without digging into the study I'm assuming they didn't account for that in their cost calculations.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Yes. you're not allowed to use sites these shitholes don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly of course you're allowed to use what ever site you want. But if you are trying to make a point and use a link from such an obviously biased source don't expect anyone to your argument serious. Would you?
 
Thebobo said:
Don't be silly of course you're allowed to use what ever site you want. But if you are trying to make a point and use a link from such an obvious biased source don't expect anyone to your argument serious. Would you?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, do you link to the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Snopes, FactCheck and the Guardian and expect us to believe the serial and biased liars?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
I'm not sure, do you link to the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Snopes, FactCheck and the Guardian and expect us to believe the serial and biased liars?
Click to expand...

Sure I do when it comes to factual news I trust those sites. Are they perfect no they all make mistakes but it's rare. I don't know about factcheck but the other sites you listed have to be correct in their news articles. And that goes for all established news sites. If not they get called out from other news agencies. And that's bad for the reporters and the bottom line. No real serious reporter or news outlet wants to get the wrong story, they live off their reputation.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You do know that sea level has been steady for 2 years now, the average is about 8 inch increase in SLR every 10 years? Either way i'm not concerned.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/
Click to expand...
Her only conclusion stated in this is that using tide gauges for short-period measurements are unreliable.

If you aren't concerned, it's probably because you aren't coastal.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll note that tidal gauges began usage in the 1800's and have since fallen out of style, precisely because they were not super accurate.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...en-tides-200-years-measuring-global-sea-level
WG1AR5_SPM_sealevel.gif

More accurate measurements show the rate of increase between 1993 and 2010 to be approximately 3.2mm/yr.
 
Thebobo said:
Sure I do when it comes to factual news I trust those sites. Are they perfect no they all make mistakes but it's rare. I don't know about factcheck but the other sites you listed have to be correct in their news articles. And that goes for all established news sites. If not they get called out from other news agencies. And that's bad for the reporters and the bottom line. No real serious reporter or news outlet wants to get the wrong story, they live off their reputation.
Click to expand...
Did you even see the clip that the Guardian showed about President Trump yesterday ? You know the one where they cut the Prime Minister of Japan out of the clip to make it look like President trump screwed up? Of course you did and of course you liked it and approved of it because it was the type of biased lie that you support. So go screw yourself and screw the sites you "trust" , you trust them to tell the lies you want to hear.
 
Yes, and still about 8 inches a decade, noting when your falsely truncated graph started and stopped.

[DHT]Osiris said:
Her only conclusion stated in this is that using tide gauges for short-period measurements are unreliable.

If you aren't concerned, it's probably because you aren't coastal.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll note that tidal gauges began usage in the 1800's and have since fallen out of style, precisely because they were not super accurate.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...en-tides-200-years-measuring-global-sea-level
WG1AR5_SPM_sealevel.gif

More accurate measurements show the rate of increase between 1993 and 2010 to be approximately 3.2mm/yr.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
imported_tajmahal said:
I'm not sure, do you link to the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Snopes, FactCheck and the Guardian and expect us to believe the serial and biased liars?
Click to expand...

Thank you for so clearly distilling why the extreme right is the way it is. You equate world renowned, mainstream newspapers with high editorial standards and large numbers of professional journalists to blatant conservative advocacy sites and crank sites from noted climate change denialists like Anthony Watts.

I'm not really sure how to communicate with someone who has set up their own alternate reality like you have.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Her only conclusion stated in this is that using tide gauges for short-period measurements are unreliable.

If you aren't concerned, it's probably because you aren't coastal.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll note that tidal gauges began usage in the 1800's and have since fallen out of style, precisely because they were not super accurate.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...en-tides-200-years-measuring-global-sea-level
WG1AR5_SPM_sealevel.gif

More accurate measurements show the rate of increase between 1993 and 2010 to be approximately 3.2mm/yr.
Click to expand...

Interesting article - thanks! Glad it wasn't my job to measure tides in Alaska (left image)!
scuba_tidegauge_610.jpg
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Yes, and still about 8 inches a year, noting when your falsely truncated graph started and stopped.
Click to expand...

Dumbshit can't read a simple graph -- no wonder he's so consistently and egregiously wrong about almost everything. Pretty sure you said you went to college at some point ... please enlighten me as to which so I can never send my future children there. Their standards are clearly pitifully low if you managed to graduate.
 
fskimospy said:
Thank you for so clearly distilling why the extreme right is the way it is. You equate world renowned, mainstream newspapers with high editorial standards and large numbers of professional journalists to blatant conservative advocacy sites and crank sites from noted climate change denialists like Anthony Watts.

I'm not really sure how to communicate with someone who has set up their own alternate reality like you have.
Click to expand...
Watts who was a radio weatherman. That's it. Those are his credentials.

Www.wottsupwiththat.com is a fun site for debunking of Watts.
 
Last edited:
MomentsofSanity said:
Watts who was a radio weatherman. That's it. Those are his credentials.
Click to expand...
To add to that, the blog he linked from, while the owner is at least a climatologist, the actual writer of the article/paper/whatever that's supposed to be is Rud Istvan, who near as I can tell is nothing more than a corporate executive, who's written three random books concerning climate, with no real credentials to back anything up aside from business and econ crap from Harvard.
 
repoman0 said:
Dumbshit can't read a simple graph -- no wonder he's so consistently and egregiously wrong about almost everything. Pretty sure you said you went to college at some point ... please enlighten me as to which so I can never send my future children there. Their standards are clearly pitifully low if you managed to graduate.
Click to expand...

tajbot is just a bot. All that matters is posting a random complaint about the graph regardless of its accuracy. Really simplistic bot created by a shitty developer.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Did you even see the clip that the Guardian showed about President Trump yesterday ? You know the one where they cut the Prime Minister of Japan out of the clip to make it look like President trump screwed up? Of course you did and of course you liked it and approved of it because it was the type of biased lie that you support. So go screw yourself and screw the sites you "trust" , you trust them to tell the lies you want to hear.
Click to expand...

Actually no I didn't see this clip, is there a link to it because I can't find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top