bristolboy

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What observed sea level rise?

Unless they claim sea level rises in one part of the ocean and not others, sea level has not risen significantly on the Pacific coast of NZ in my lifetime, ergo, not anywhere in the Pacific.

Has it risen on the California coast? I've heard nothing about that.

Can you ever be bothered to do research? Ever?

It took me under a minute to find this:

"From 1993 to 2016 the global average sea level rose at an average rate of about 3.4 mm per year. 

Due to the influence of regional climate trends and gravitational effects, sea level does not rise uniformly around the globe. Sea levels in New Zealand rose on average by 1.7 mm per year from 1900 to 2008."

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise

Just now, rabas said:

Because Russia and China really loved the lopsided deal that allowed Iran to retain the technology to be a serious future nuclear threat to their enemy (competitor) the US. Why wouldn't they?

 

 

Then why would they have supported the deal in the first place? Such nonsense.

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

Lucky for you isil and other jihad groups still recruiting and offer free training . Better hurry to book your next flight 

Even luckier is that Trump's policies will certainly help Isis to make a comeback. Everybody wins!

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Reuters‏Verified account @Reuters 5m5 minutes ago

 

Pro-democracy Iranians in U.S. say death of Soleimani could open a window for dissidents reut.rs/2T3Kqqu

This is what I have suggest from the start. Long shot. But it would untie a 50 year old knot. Let's pray, sure a lot of Irani are paying for the end of their mullah govt right now.

Sounds similar to what pro-democracy Iraqis in America were saying before the Iraq War.

17 hours ago, rabas said:

Just one problem,  Soleimani was banned from travel outside Iran by the United Nations Security council. Maybe he was a bad guy like they say.

 

Also under 2231, which was adopted unanimously and passed under Chapter VII (i.e. with the powers of enforcement) of the U.N. Charter, the Council banned Soleimani from any travel outside of Iran.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/03/around-the-halls-experts-react-to-the-killing-of-iranian-commander-qassem-soleimani/

 

In paragraph 14 of his December report, Guterres (sec Gen UN) noted the following: “Information from Iraqi media outlets suggests that Major General Soleimani has undertaken travel inconsistent with the travel ban provisions of the resolution. I call upon all Member States to diligently implement the restrictive measures imposed on the individuals and entities on the list maintained pursuant to resolution 2231.”

 

And the penalty for violating such a ban is death? Was Soleimani's assassination also ordered by the UN? 

11 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Smart move. Don't give Iran any info. Nothing at all. If he spoke I would be less worried if I were Iranian.

Given Trump's penchant for revealing classified information, I'd say you have a point.

1 minute ago, webfact said:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards confirm rocket attack on U.S. forces in Iraq

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps confirmed on Wednesday that it fired rockets at a U.S. air base in Iraq in revenge for the killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, according to a statement.

 

The statement also warned regional allies of the United States that they will be attacked if their countries are used for attacks against Iran.

 

(Reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Writing Alaa Swilam; Editing by Christian Schmollinger)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-08

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

That  warningshould certainly give the Kuwaitis and Saudis something to think about.

3 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

If Iran attacks any US interest or person they will be hit with so much military might it'll take them decades to recover and those sights where they are suspected of working on nukes..... gone. I'll have Fox News on all day.

Well, now that Iran has attacked that US base in western Iraq, we'll see how your prediction plays out. Or should it be called "wishful thinking."

1 hour ago, chainarong said:

The whole shebang was multiplied by huge emounts  of under growth and vasts amounts of land that were locked away by lefties and geenies for decades, one town last year carried out a protest to stop a burn off, so instead of 900 hectares they only managed 9 around the town and the end result that town isn't there today, these fires mostly started in remote area's impossible to access, which were left to burn them selves out instead they all joined up and with the help of some low life arsonists and lightning strikes, well, the rest is history. 

More reflexive anti-green nonsense. In fact, when the FFDI (Forest Fire Danger Index) is above 50, clearing potential fuel is useless. And the FFDI is at near or record levels throughout Australia.

Are hazard reduction burns effective in managing bushfires? 

"Professor Bradstock agreed, pointing to the example of Victoria's Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 that claimed the lives of 173 people.

His team studied the aftermath of the fires which were associated with an FFDI of well above 100.

They found that even in the areas where fuel had been treated with planned burns less than five years prior, there was no measurable effect on the intensity of the fires."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfires/11817336

46 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i think roy spencer at nasa said it best, its an issue of funding,

and its an issue of mandate

  The evidence contradicts what you're saying. For instance there was a major NASA study looking at the frequency of hurricanes. And it did look like the frequency was increasing. Which would certainly be a boost for ACC supporters. But a deeper look into the data showed that this apparent increase in frequency was the result of better data collection. Or take the case of the hypothesis that the loss of arctic sea ice was responsible for the weakening and wavering of the jet stream. That would have been another big plus for ACC supporters. But a major paper disproved that idea. And these examples are only a two of many.

For this fraud to work there would have to be a conscious conspiracy among the 30,000 plus climatologists out there. Because if someone came up with a paper that didn't agree with an earlier one, he or should would have to falsify their results so as not to challenge the work of others. And this would all have to be coordinated by some central authority.  This would be a fantastically complicated enterprise.

Ray Spencer's allegations are those of a sore loser who is trying to mislead people who simply don't have a clue about how science works.

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I do find Donne's aphorism to be trite in the modern world because of his Judeo Christian assumptions, that not withstanding, since my weltanshaaung is essentially based on the philosophy of personal autonomy under a the rule of a universal diety, then yes, the happiness of my accountant does in fact equate to good in a personal, philosophical and moral sense.

And as such, is entirely irrelevant to issues of public concern. Maybe some will be impressed by your use of "weltanshaaung [sic]" when "world view" would do just as well.

On 1/4/2020 at 3:21 PM, brokenbone said:

but i found the origin of that cyclone graph here

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

 

 

Ah, yes. Ryan Maue's website. Here's a little tidbit about how a British politician was caught out when he depended on data from Ryan Maue.

Major Climate Change Denial Think Tank Admits To Using False Data

“It has been brought to our attention that a temperature chart prepared by US meteorologist Ryan Maue and published by Joe Bastardi, and which was referred to in the Today programme appearance of Lord Lawson, was erroneous.

“We are therefore happy to correct the record.”

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

In fact, there are 2 distinct aspects of the dangers posed by tropical cyclones. One is frequency and one is intensity. There actually has been an observed increase in tropical cyclones. However, as this paper points out, that's most likely due to monitoring being better due to improved technology. Most likely, the frequency over time is unchanged.

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

But then there is the question of intensity. And there the story is quite different. Back in 2008 climatologist James Eisner and colleagues surveyed hurricane activity in all the world's major ocean basins. What he found was that while weaker hurricanes and tropical storms were little changed in intensity, upwards of the 70th percentile, their wind speeds had increased significantly.

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

"We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 ± 0.09 m s^-1 yr^-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234

On 1/4/2020 at 3:21 PM, brokenbone said:

The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr ' There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this centuiy

page 261 5 of 25

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

 

As a look at the bibilography in its bibliography will show you, this IPCC report  cuts its research base several years before the report is issued.  In this case there was nothing I could find later than 2104. Given the size and collaborative nature of these reports, that is inevitable. But since then 2 major studies show that the rate of sea level rise accelerating.

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem...

If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 -- enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities, according to the new assessment by Nerem and colleagues from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; CU Boulder; the University of South Florida in Tampa; and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating

Global sea level rise began accelerating ‘30 years earlier’ than previously thought

Global sea level rise began to accelerate in the 1960s, 30 years earlier than suggested by previous assessments, a new study finds.

The study, published in Nature Climate Change, introduces a new technique to more accurately determine historical global sea levels by combining two different statistical approaches.

It was found that the southern hemisphere, home to many developing small island nations, experienced the majority of the observed sea level rise, the lead author tells Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-sea-level-rise-began-accelerating-30-years-earlier-than-previously-thought