Turbulent Eddie, corals can adapt to higher temperatures over many thousands of years, but they cannot adapt to 1 degree rise in 100 years. You understand that this incredibly rapid increase in CO2 and temperatures is bad for corals and for the environment right?
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Rud, your #3 point, the 97% meme, was on my wish list to quantify in the hearing. JC and Steyn both were able to partially quantify it in reaction to some of the statements, but without proactively establishing an argumentative beachhead that fully quantifies this meme it makes all other arguments an uphill battle. If for example any of the scientists had stated that they themselves are among the 97%, that alone would provide a pregnant pause requiring elaboration. Of course the 97% meme simply means a belief in some AGW, it doesn’t imply CAGW.
Overall, the Dem Senators tried to run the clock on Titley as much as possible who dominated the beginning segements, but there were some good counter punches once the good guys were able to get their licks in. The format didn’t allow for much lengthy deliberation or cross examination, what have you. There’s so much I would have liked to be expressed.
Isn’t the warmer perspective already will disseminated? In such a hearing I don’t see a need for both sides being represented, it simply invites more leftist smokescreen politics to eat the clock. The point was to hear the other side as far as I’m concerned.
The nature of the hearing would have been conducive to well honed soundbites as you describe. There’s not enough time to get deep in the weeds, but probably not enough attention span even if you could get in the weeds.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie
Turbulent Eddie, corals can adapt to higher temperatures over many thousands of years
Individual corals do not live thousands of years.
But they evolved just fine, some die, but more resilient live.
The coral thing is hooey.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie
You understand that this incredibly rapid increase in CO2 and temperatures is bad for corals and for the environment right?
Nonesense.
It’s not the rate – the rate of change from winter to summer in the tropics is about 4C per year or 400C per century.
The rate of global average temperature change is about 1.5C per century.
So skip the rate argument – it’s wrong.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666
Joseph, I guess no-one cares about your guesses.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by David Skurnick
Same question as Pierre-Normand. I missed the hearing and would like to find it somewhere.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk
Turbulent Eddie, you are not a smart poster. I did not say that an individual coral lives for 1000 years. I said that corals can adapt to temperature change that is gradual. Some corals thrive as it gets hotter over 100,000 years through natural selection. There is no natural selection possible in 1 degree in 100 years. Sorry that this contradicts your folklore.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie
It is only about 8 degrees between ice ages, which rotate over about 100,000 years. We just increased temperatures 1 degree celsius in about 140 years.
Global average temperature didn’t cause the ice age.
Local incident solar radiation caused the ice ages.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666
“…as I have tried to explain to you before.
LOL!
You’re funny!
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666
“…the usual conspiracy ideation…”
Titter!
You’ve been reading too much Loopy Loopaper Lewandowsky, mate!
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk
I just want to finish this and destroy this absurd trolling.
Corals live in a limited range of temperatures, so the 4C per year change between summer and winter is OK. But we just increased avg temps by 1 degree, so the baseline has changed and the higher levels are too hot. That is probably too complicated for you. Sorry. If it takes 100,000 years to move 8 degrees, then 1 degree in 100 years is extraordinarily fast. I find it amazingly frustrating that such simple concepts are so hard for climate deniers to understand.
Where in the world did you dream up the stat that global average temperature change is 1.5C per century? So in 20 centuries, average temperatures could increase by 30C? OMG. That is just stupid.
It’s not the rate – the rate of change from winter to summer in the tropics is about 4C per year or 400C per century.
The rate of global average temperature change is about 1.5C per century.
So skip the rate argument – it’s wrong.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aaron
It’s a good thing that the ocean doesn’t warm or cool overnight.
I hope you realize how stupid the supposition that coral bleaching doesn’t happen without global warming and that corals can deal with long and short term variations, but not a modest trend is.
Global warming causing bleaching simply hasn’t been established. In fact, evidence is against it. Bleaching happens for a variety of reasons, naturally. Events happen and new corals move in.
Your work is mostly entertaining some rich men.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666
Tripp Funderburk : “One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change.”
I see.
Can you inform us of precisely how much ‘hotter’ the oceans have become due to climate change, and where you acquired your information?
To the nearest one hundredth of one degree centigrade will do.
Can you then tell us how closely this figure correlates with the data from the ARGO buoys?
Then, you can tell us how much increase in temperature is necessary to cause coral bleaching, again to the nearest one hundredth of one degree centigrade will be sufficient.
In your own time…
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D
Emission growth has slowed only because certain forms of emission have been easy to phase out and energy efficiency has become a priority for environmental reasons, but if you think coal, oil and deforestation will just go away by themselves, you are dreaming. Left to themselves, these industries intend to continue do what they do to the last, and to fight anything that prevents that.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
The Republicans abandoned Cruz. Ask yourself why
Christy was never asked about the UAH series. Ask yourself why.
The hearing was a complete disaster for Cruz.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Arch Stanton
What are the long term effects of Cesium 137, going to be on the worlds coral reserves according to the UN?
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang
Peter Davies,
What is the relevance of that comment?
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Mark Silbert
I couldn’t get it on Cspan either.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk
Where do these bizarre questions come from? NOAA has satellites and predictive capability that is mirrored by the actual bleaching that is occurring. When the OCEAN GETS TOO HOT THE CORALS BLEACH. That is happening as predicted. What precise data do you require? When I go diving and see bleached coral, my computer usually shows that the temps are around 88 fahrenheit. Corals bleached at 86 in the past, but those corals mostly died off. It is not some joke, or some debate with those that deny science. Corals in the Pacific are bleaching now BECAUSE IT IS TOO HOT. Do you assert that corals are not bleaching, or that the ocean is not getting hotter. In your time….
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D
Nothing is coming out of the Smith “investigation” and he probably didn’t expect it to produce anything either. Investigations are a modus operandi by the Republicans to throw dirt at people they don’t like.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
