Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

And what is being proposed on the part of yourself to try and prevent such from occurring? What is being done on the part of yourself to try and be part of the solution?

 

Get a conversion table. A meter is not a foot

 

A whole host of things you apparently wouldn't even consider. ...starting with rejoining the Paris Accords.

 

here's a link to a list:

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-you-can-stop-global-warming

 

Math, so hard for some. 0.274 meters is less than a foot.

 

None of which can possibly offset what large corporations do in the way of polluting the environment in the name of greater profits.

 

I GAVE you as link saying it will be 1 full meter by 2100

 

But that's not what you asked. Goal post moving much?

 

that's what the paris accord is all about

it's putting the world on track to abate carbon emissions

but, republicans don't want to face the realities of global warming

 

Only if one were to completely ignore a previous post calling for suggestions that could make a significant difference in a short amount of time, and not require the passage of a century before a measurable difference could potentially be pointed to.

The accord has done nothing but present terms and catch phrases that sound good, but ultimately do nothing in the way of addressing the problem, or coming up with workable solutions. Fuel efficient motor vehicles are not a viable solution if the manufacturing process to put them on the market is more pollution intensive than the method of manufacturing older motor vehicles.

 

It has pushed nations to significantly reduce their admissions over a relatively short period of time.

Of course if your goal is to prevent that kind of thing...carry on

 

Pray tell how so? What have these nations done that will have a significant, measurable, demonstrable offense that will not require the passage of a century before the effects can be observed for themselves? What sort of plans have they developed that have actual substance, rather than simply sounding like an impressive approach to a matter that is so poorly understood by so many?

 

So, what if the predictions are wrong? 2016/17 sea state rise as noted by sat data from NASA shows the level is declining. Now what?

 

And I pointed out you do not know how to do math. Point is, the article is wrong and with the sea level based on the PMSL data is 4 to 10 inches by 2100, not one meter.

 

warming isn't declining and the melting trend isn't either

you're parroting lies from big-oil and coal

 

Are you not the same person that told me that data duration wasn't a factor? NASA's own data shows that 2016/2017 sea state was down. Their own chart shows this. The NOAA weather data shows the rapid decline in temperatures since the break of the El Nino in early 2017. So, if duration doesn't matter, then the only trend data is the most current one, which looks precipitously steeply declining.... Bummer.

 

i'm not the person who said that

i'm the person who said that both both poles are losing ice

and showed you up-to-date info from 2017, when you posted something from 2015:

 

Then actually show what the accord has produced that amounts to substance.

 

And yet, you make the same argument. So, if duration doesn't matter, sea state rise is on the decline. Temperatures are on the decline. Overall sea ice extent is on the decline, right? Can you explain the discrepancy then? If global ice is on the decline, how can the sea state not be rising, or the temperatures continue to rise? Seems exceptionally problematic.

 

Evidently, as an offering of evidence, perhaps we should look at the experience folks in Southern Australia are enduring?

 

what i'm doing is posting facts and evidence

which expose how dishonest your comments are

 

what a joke, like you want to see the truth told

if you really want to understand the paris accord

read about it and stop asking dumb questions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

 

Continental ice, not sea ice which is seasonal. Greenland is also on it's way back to gaining the ice it lost 2011-2012.

 

OK, so the facts, and evidence as I pointed out are that Temps are declining, Sea state is falling, and ice extent is declining. These are all facts we know. You are the one who has continued to say that duration of the trend wasn't important. So, given the time from early 2016 forward, these are the trends. So, if these are the facts as expressed by NOAA and NASA, you're point is what? That you can post facts? If that's the extent to it?

 

I would point out that you seem to be reiterating the idea that duration doesn't matter, as the trend line in the above graph is still positive. So, even though the extent may have had a low year, the trend over time is accumulation, right?