Obama Wants To Raise Your Electric Bill

Nootch is not going to be OK, he'll be under water in 50 years. Agricultural output will drop 10%, food will get expensive, etc.

Anyway, you should look at the chart again. It's degrees in Centigrade, not Farenheit. A one-degree C increase over the last 100 years projects to a 70-degree F increase by 3609! Of course that is too far to project solely by this graph. But MIT experts actually predict a 2.4 to 5.1 degree C rise over the next 100 years using models incorporating multiple parameters. LINK

The IPCC consensus calculates a range using worst and best scenarios to arrive at a 100-year increase of between 1.1 to 6.4 degree C increase. LINK

 

Ah, a technical response. :lol:

Well, some scientists are odd birds, chief . . . but they ain't wrong until they are proven to be wrong.

 

You can prove that their calculations were in error today. Or you can't.

Can you share your calculations then, bitch-slapper? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

You said that "Using your data (the graph) and assuming the 200 year trend continues unabated, the temperature will have increased by 1 degree F by the year 3609" That would be 1 degree F increase in 1600 years.

Since the graph shows a 0.9 C degree increase over the last 160 years, that would be a rate of 0.0056 degrees a year. 0.0056 degrees a year times 1600 years equals a 9 degrees C ( 16.2 degree F) increase, not 1 degree F. Did I misunderstand your contention?

Furthermore the graph also shows a steepened 1.0 degree increase over the last 100 years (for a 0.01 annual increase equalling 16 degrees C increase in 3609. This indicates an upward curve that would increase the projected rate even more.

 

I see why you are . . . confused.

The graph is not a time track of Temperature in degrees C. It is a time track of Temperature Anomaly, measured in degrees centigrade. Zero does not represent 0 degrees Celcius, it represents the baseline datum that the temperature anomaly was measured against.

The datum is used by climatologists to make necessary corrections to raw temperature data. It removes temperature biases by latitude, altitude, geography, season, time of day, equipment change, proximity to cities, and other factors that are necessary to make a single global temperature curve from hundreds of thousands of readings from around the world, spanning centuries.

What the graph depicts is the degrees C of change not the absolute degrees C. Your interpretation would imagine a global average temperature of close to freezing rather than the 20th century average temperature of 14 degrees C (57 degrees F)

Bitch.

 

Just following the thread, staying out of the discussion because I don't have any real technical knowledge (or links :hihi to contribute. But I see.....

Then I see....

70 degrees, or 16 degrees? That's a big difference.