patrick.net

I reckon that from a risk reward standpoint being a contrarian is enticing because of the very small chance you'll be right and the super majority was wrong and everyone can pat you on the back for being so smart. Meanwhile, a contrarian who is siding with their overlords and the right wing in general is probably just more comfortable with that position if they are already a republican in the first place. Thinking for oneself can be challenging, especially if you are being asked to agree with people in the opposing tribe.

But it is anything but a conservative position.

anon_08dee says

anon_c1985 says

Onvacation says

And if all the arctic ice is melting why was the low point in arctic sea ice extent on September 17, 2012? Shouldn't there be less ice every year?

Is disinformation all you've got ?

Data from:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

marcus says

That data you're referring to is a graph that takes one reading per year, at reading at the approximate low in September each year just in the arctic.

No it is DAILY ice readings
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Not familiar with how trends work?

marcus says

Meanwhile, a contrarian who is siding with their overlords and the right wing in general is probably just more comfortable with that position if they are already a republican in the first place.

And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.
marcus says

Thinking for oneself can be challenging,

Yes it can. Even Michael Mann is shifting the narrative from warming to "extreme weather events". You must have missed the memo.

Been too busy lately but will be back soon for a summary of questions answered.

HappyGilmore says

Not familiar with how trends work?

Too busy right now. I'll try to explain it to you later.

HappyGilmore says

Not familiar with how trends work?

Clearly, he is not.

Onvacation says

And if all the arctic ice is melting why was the low point in arctic sea ice extent on September 17, 2012? Shouldn't there be less ice every year?

At the very least, he is confusing long term trend with a monotonic function. Nobody claimed that the temperature would increase monotonically and nobody claimed that the sea ice extent would decrease monotonically. A long term trend does not imply such behavior. It really is an asinine question that betrays the ignorance of the questioner. That is not a personal attack. It's just the blatantly obvious truth that anybody with some basic scientific training should be able to see.

marcus says

I don't see how an objective person denies the trend.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ As you can see from this graph, September 16, 2012 was the all time record low for arctic sea ice extent. Since then the trend has been up.

Onvacation says

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ As you can see from this graph, September 16, 2012 was the all time record low for arctic sea ice extent. Since then the trend has been up.

Nope--that's not really how trends work. The trend has been down with 2012 being below the trend. There is always a bit of noise due to other variables.

Onvacation says

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ As you can see from this graph, September 16, 2012 was the all time record low for arctic sea ice extent. Since then the trend has been up.

Obviously this post is not an honest description of the wider situation:

Heraclitusstudent says

Why do we have to discuss such obvious facts as the whether changes and is not the same everywhere?

HappyGilmore says

There is always a bit of noise due to other variables.

Always some noise.
So what are these other variables?

Onvacation says

Always some noise.
So what are these other variables?

There are too many to list. Weather is truly a complex system--which makes it remarkable that the data is so clear and convincing that the Earth is warming.

Onvacation says

So what are these other variables?

You are asking a lot of basic questions.

How about you answer a few?:
- Why and how are most scientists in 200 countries and over several decades agreeing to lie about this particular subject?
- What other theory do you have that fully explains all observations including melting ice, increasing temps, the distribution of this increase over the planet, etc....?
- Why isn't the added CO2 not producing the greenhouse effect that is expected to occur considering its known absorption of certain radiations frequencies?

If you can't answer these questions, then why are you so set against this particular theory?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why do we have to discuss such obvious facts as the whether changes and is not the same everywhere?

I see from our chart that the minimum arctic sea ice extent trend has been completely flat over the last decade.

HappyGilmore says

So what are these other variables?

There are too many to list.

Exactly! Co2 is a small variable. Manmade co2 is an even smaller climate variable.

Onvacation says

I see from our chart that the minimum arctic sea ice extent trend has been completely flat over the last decade.

How about 20 yrs?

There were no ice caps about 50 mya.

Life was flourishing like crazy. Mammals up the ass. Palm Trees in Wyoming. Huge areas of the biggest landmass in the Northern Hemisphere full of beautiful trees and animals.

The average temp of the Earth was about the same as Lagos, Nigeria.

How many human beings live in and around Lagos, Nigeria? About 16 Million. Most of them live in places with no A/C, Some don't have running water. The population is booming.

This post isn't to contest AGW, but to contest the "We're all gonna die" part.

HappyGilmore says

the data is so clear and convincing that the Earth is warming.

Maybe a little, maybe not. 2 degrees over the last 150 years is not much considering that during this time we have been recovering from the little ice age. But the warming and sea rise is NOT exponential as the alarmists predicted.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Life was flourishing like crazy. Mammals up the ass.

There wasn't 7 billions human beings around that time around.

Heraclitusstudent says

- Why and how are most scientists in 200 countries and over several decades agreeing to lie about this particular subject?

Mostly politicians lie. Although 97% of scientists that believe in CAGW do believe that mans co2 is making earth warmer.
Heraclitusstudent says

What other theory do you have that fully explains all observations including melting ice, increasing temps, the distribution of this increase over the planet, etc....?

The natural variation in earths orbit and the suns output.
Heraclitusstudent says

- Why isn't the added CO2 not producing the greenhouse effect that is expected to occur

Good question for the alarmist scientist: why is the increasing co2 not correlated with increased heat?
Now, can you answer how the worldwide average temp increase of 4/100 of one degree between 2016 and 2017 can even be measured?

Can anyone?

Onvacation says

Exactly! Co2 is a small variable. Manmade co2 is an even smaller climate variable.

Small variables sometime have large effects.

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

Onvacation--

Do you dispute that the Earth is warming then?

HappyGilmore says

Do you dispute that the Earth is warming then?

The earth is warming but not enough. I fear more cold is coming.

Would you rather live on a frozen tundra or a tropical rain forest?

Are we comparing real data to proxies?

In other words, is the data from 200, 2,000, 20,000 years ago actual measurements, or guesstimates of measurements often using only one or two proxies that cannot be backtested? Realizing that scientists are still debating if signs in some rocks in Australia represent the earliest signs of life around Billions of Years Ago or if they are caused by a natural chemical process.

And then comparing those to actual measurements.

Realizing that if the proxies have an MOE of temperature just 2-3% off it changes everything. A Degree Celsius easily vanishes.

As always, we should be talking about population control and ban private vehicles. Those are the only things people who really believe AGW is an issue to be discussing. Recycling paper and separating the yellow from the white from the cardboard isn't even remotely important.

Let's remember the "average Global" temperature has risen by about 1F in an entire century. There is no static Earth. We do not have direct measurements prior to 1900, and frankly the measuring tools were far more primitive and imprecise in the 19th Century than today. A dollar store thermometer is more accurate today than a handcrafted one costing a princely sum that some Wealthy Royal Society Lord would have used.

Onvacation says

And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.

So the idea that a republican that can't think for themselves might naturally parrot climate change denial that is an implicit part of the republican platform, is a conspiracy theory ?

If republicans go along with anti gun control, supply side economics, or opposing abortion, in part because these are things they are supposed to believe, is that a conspiracy theory too ?

Onvacation says

The earth is warming but not enough. I fear more cold is coming.

Would you rather live on a frozen tundra or a tropical rain forest?

If only it were that simple and that binary choice....

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Realizing that if the proxies have an MOE of temperature just 2-3% off it changes everything. A Degree Celsius easily vanishes.

That's not how statistics work. The error would have to be systematic in one direction to give the result you ascribe.

It's just as likely that the error would be systematically in the other direction meaning the Earth has warmed MORE than is being stated.

But, by far the most likely is that the error is random and evens out over time.

HappyGilmore says

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

You first. Co2 is a fertilizer essential to life on earth not a poison.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

As always, we should be talking about population control and ban private vehicles.

Why don't the alarmists lobby for population control and banning private vehicles?

CO2 would have to be 5% of the atmosphere before harmful effects were felt by humans.

Today's CO2 level is 0.04% up from 0.03% over an entire century.

There may not be enough fossil fuel reserves to get to 5% CO2, even if we could extract them all and burn them in a very short timeframe.

I love these charts that are like "CO2 Levels over Earth's History" that only go back to 1000AD. We don't measure "Earth History" in centuries, but in the tens of millions of years.

They don't want to show the Permian, Triassic, Devonian etc. Eras when estimated CO2 was running north of 1000ppm (almost 4000ppm in some eras!!!) but life was absolutely abundant.

HappyGilmore says

Onvacation--

Do you dispute that the Earth is warming then?

The temperature trend for the past ten thousand years -- trend that includes twentieth and twenty first centiry -- is negative. The Earth has been cooling ever since the warming that took us out of the last Ice Age.

In order to find warming, one has to start his trend line either
1. in 1850, as the Little Ice Age came to an end, or (that's what Hansen did when he testified before Congress)
2. in 1970. when the smaller warming/cooling cycle has exited the cooling phase and entered the warming phase.

Couple of years ago, I made a prediction, that despite whatever adjustments the climate "scientists" will do to the data, New Yorkers will witness frozen Hudzon by the end of the century. And guess what -- Niagara Falls is almost frozen.

anon_1bd09 says

In order to find warming, one has to start his trend line either
1. in 1850, as the Little Ice Age came to an end, or (that's what Hansen did when he testified before Congress)
2. in 1970. when the smaller warming/cooling cycle has exited the cooling phase and entered the warming phase.

Well, the entire thesis is that man-made CO2 is affecting global ecosystem. The amount of CO2 has risen sharply over the last century so it makes sense to look at this time period.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 would have to be 5% of the atmosphere before harmful effects were felt by humans.

source?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

They don't want to show the Permian, Triassic, Devonian etc. Eras when estimated CO2 was running north of 1000ppm (almost 4000ppm in some eras!!!) but life was absolutely abundant.

And how many humans were on the planet then?

Despite your strawman argument, the point isn't that all humans will die. Of course not. But many will. And the costs could be astronomical.

Onvacation says

But the warming and sea rise is NOT exponential as the alarmists predicted.

It's not changing fast enough for you, therefore it's wrong ? They predicted a couple feet sea level increase over the course of a century. Very slow exponential growth isn't going to be trackable in the short run. It's going to be smaller than the short term variations. During the period 1970 - 2016 people got something like an 8% return on stock investments. This is exponential because you're always getting 8% on previous gains as well as your original investment. That doesn't mean there can't be a month that the stock market goes down, or even a year or two. Those decreases don't mean that stock market values don't grow exponentially.

Onvacation says

Now, can you answer how the worldwide average temp increase of 4/100 of one degree between 2016 and 2017 can even be measured?

So really what your argument is here is that you can find a short term period where the increase was small. You're arguments are beyond weak.

They took reading at hundreds (or thousands) of locations and calculated the average increase. So it's a small number ? That's because it's a small period of time. The change isn't overnight. If it were, the apocolypse would be behind us (perhaps what you wish to be true ? Just guessing).

This chart is from an alarmist website, trying to make a connection between extinctions and CO2.

Notice of course, what the average CO2 levels are. For example, from 200mya to about 50mya it averaged well over 1000ppm.

http://www.johnenglander.net/co2-levels-and-mass-extinction-events/

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Are we comparing real data to proxies?

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 would have to be 5% of the atmosphere before harmful effects were felt by humans.

You mean harmful effects because of breathing it? No one is talking about that.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

As always, we should be talking about population control and ban private vehicles.

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.
So?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let's remember the "average Global" temperature has risen by about 1F in an entire century. There is no static Earth. We do not have direct measurements prior to 1900, and frankly the measuring tools were far more primitive and imprecise in the 19th Century than today. A dollar store thermometer is more accurate today than a handcrafted one costing a princely sum that some Wealthy Royal Society Lord would have used.

If we were to continue burning fuel as we are now, the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade. Oceans would rise by several meters. Parts of the land would inhabitable and ravaged by deadly heat waves on a regular basis, other parts lost to sea. Hundreds of millions of "poor people" might move north to humm the US, Europe, etc... If Europe can't take a million Syrians, what is the political impact of 200 or 300 millions Africans or Indians? What is the stability of our civilization under such circumstances?

I'm sorry I don't find what happened millions of years ago very re-assuring.

Sniper says

Joey, firstly, florists regularly inject CO2 into the greenhouses at the level of 1200 - 1600ppm to spur growth of the plants. Does that sound harmful to yo-u?

Hahaha ! Good one.

Yeah, you don't see the sunlight inside the greenehouse getting ovelrly magnified in a dangerous way do ya. WELL DO YA !?

Sniper says

Second, CO2 levels can rise in the 1200- 2000 ppm levels in a closed meeting room? How many people do yo-u know have died during meetings?

You guys are funny. I'll give you that.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

There may not be enough fossil fuel reserves to get to 5% CO2

Really?
I thought oxygen on earth comes from CO2, so that burning all carbon literally means running out of oxygen. There are giant reserves of methane hydrate in the ocean floor.

HappyGilmore says

Well, the entire thesis is that man-made CO2 is affecting global ecosystem. The amount of CO2 has risen sharply over the last century so it makes sense to look at this time period.

Did your high school teacher tell you that?

First, CO2 started rising sharply in late 1940s (after WW2) -- not in 1850s, and not in 1970s. There is simply no correlation between temp and CO2. The data adjusters have shot themselves in the foot by flattening the warming curve over the entire 20th century, and leaving CO2 alone.

Second, that thesis was postulated a hundred years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect) and discarded around 1960s, when all the human released CO2 did not stop the cooling in the 1970 (that cooling was adjusted away by climate "scientists" adjustment team five years ago)