SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1437550)2/5/2024 3:25:25 PM
From: Wharf Rat1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

  Respond to of 1573695
 
Extreme Temperature Diary- Monday February 5th, 2024/ Main Topic: Ferocious Fires Erupt in Chile Linked to Heatwaves Exacerbated by Climate Change – Guy On Climate



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1437550)2/5/2024 3:49:14 PM
From: Sdgla  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573695
 
The data is clear & you keep pushing BS. Stick with your judge & your book reviewer… I’ll go with the Cornell MIT Princeton Data crew.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1437550)2/5/2024 4:01:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Bill

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573695
 
Wharfie, based on that graph alone, the rate of change is 0.8 degrees Celsius every 40 years.

That means, if the current rate is maintained, we'll look at a planet that is 1.6 degrees hotter in 2100.

That's significant, but not anywhere near the end of the world. Humanity can easily adapt to that.

Personally I think that's an upper limit, and that in reality the globe won't heat up by more than 1.2 degrees by 2100. That's due to a combination of factors such as peak oil, the deceleration of world population growth, new technologies, and the transition of the entire world toward a 1st-world economy.

That's just my opinion, though, but it's one that isn't skewed by the green political agenda.

Tenchusatsu



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1437550)2/5/2024 5:55:53 PM
From: Eric1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Wharf Rat

  Respond to of 1573695
 
Dyson makes fundamental errors which show, “that the author has never even sat down with the undergraduate level approximation of how atmospheric radiative transfer actually works. It’s really quite shocking.”

Yep,

Dyson didn't have a clue.

NASA's satellite chain proved the radiative transfer numbers years ago.

Less energy leaving the planet.

What's actually changed is less energy leaving the planet to space. The Sun has been pretty constant. 1366 watts striking the top of the atmosphere per sq mtr.


Increased greenhouse gasses.

bbc.com