patrick.net

Rew says

This is no longer a site exchanging ideas, in neutrality. There is a clear agenda here.

Can't we all get along?
@Patrick
Onvacation says

Please mark this off topic.

So I can get back to my questions for alarmists. Thanks.

Onvacation says

So I can get back to my questions for alarmists. Thanks.

Great--how about you start by answering mine?

HappyGilmore says

Great--how about you start by answering mine?

Onvacation says

How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
Answer 3/4 of 1 degree of temp and 4 inches of sea level.

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

Answer 4/100 of one degree.
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Not answered

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Still waiting for answers to these important questions.

So does that mean you can't answer my simple question?

And what happened to the high priest of global warmings (Michael Mann) hockey stick?

anonymous says

while still believing some mythical being created the heavens

It does take faith to believe!
Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

Answer 4/100 of one degree.
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Not answered

Do any of you true believers have answers or just personal attack?

HappyGilmore says

Like I said--I'm not playing your games. The questions you ask are easily answered with a simple google search

So you got no answers?
Thanks for playing.

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

HappyGilmore says

(some of which have already been answered)

And even without all of the answers the true believers look kind of lame.

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Assumption not valid. There are not huge discrepancies.

HappyGilmore says

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Assumption not valid. There are not huge discrepancies.

Really?
Four inches of sea level rise versus Manhattan underwater. One degree of temp rise versus exponential wet bulbing. No disrepancies?

It's getting harder and harder to be a CAGW sockpuppet every year the temp and sea doesn't rise. Notice the lack of answers to my questions?

Does anyone have any answers?

Onvacation says

Four inches of sea level rise versus Manhattan underwater. One degree of temp rise versus exponential wet bulbing. No disrepancies?

Yep--because you are not accurately recounting what was said and predicted.

HappyGilmore says

Yep--because you are not accurately recounting what was said and predicted.

So what was said and predicted?
Fight for your religion!

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers or just personal attack?

THe thing is, it would be difficult for a person having both an IQ over 80 and any degree of emotional health to not easily find all the predictions that have been made about (for example) the range of sea level increase that will occur by the year 2100 without significant leveling off of CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

You must understand:

1) It's a range of possibilities based on data analysis

2) By definition to some degree, it's speculative. It's a probabilistic analysis, not God's word on what's going to happen.

But in the real world, people make decisions based on this type of information. Take buying stocks for example. We don't know the market will continue higher when we invest. You analyze potential risk versus reward and act accordingly. Although I will grant you that avoiding catastrophe decades in the future, is a different kind of risk reward analysis, than that involved in not missing out on the next rally in the stock market.

Onvacation says

So what was said and predicted?
Fight for your religion!

Like the post above wrote--experts have warned about potential outcomes and have listed some possibilities that may occur if the worst case scenarios from models prove correct. Thankfully, these worst cases have not come to pass--even the more ardent global warming advocates said they were unlikely to happen, that's why they are called worst case scenarios--and for you to claim that was the "prediction" is disingenuous at best.

Climate is obviously very complex and predictions come with a large error bar because of the many, many variables involved.

But, there is absolute consensus that higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures. Once you understand and agree with that, then you can have a discussion.

HappyGilmore says

But, there is absolute consensus that higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures.

No there is not!
Propaganda.

anon_08dee says

THe thing is

So you have no answers?

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Still waiting for answers.

Onvacation says

Does anyone have any answers?

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

anon_08dee says

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

Can you summarize the point?

anon_08dee says

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

Do you even have a point posting alarmist videos?

The truth believers have tried to educate the denier conspiracy theory toting lemmings, but there is no teaching them. Said lemmings continue to fight for the oil barons, Saudis, Russians et al, who are suckling the tweets of their oil pools.
That's all this thread is good for. It's a pile of rhetorical bullshit and untruths.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

It's a pile of rhetorical bullshit and untruths.

So, why do the "Alarmists" keep spewing all those untruths and bullshit? Haven't they learned that GW is a hoax yet?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

That's all this thread is good for. It's a pile of rhetorical bullshit and untruths.

So you got nothing but personal attack?

Funny. All that for the science that lead to things like, antibiotics, the internet, all modern technology, very few were crying "propaganda!"

But now just because this topic has a political connection (bullshit right versus left) and there is actual propaganda put out by people in fossil fuel industries and sympathy from right wing business leaders who fear loss of short term economic growth, we have a lot of regular folks ( good at believing whatever they want to believe) that will gullibly go with whatever their overlords tell them to believe.

It is very sad. By extrapolating the political trends and the increasing degree to which the public is so easily manipulated (e.g. the election of Trump) it's easy to get very cynical about the future of humankind. Maybe it's right to not worry about climate change, because we're so totally fucked anyway.

Reality based moderate: "Those right wingers accept disproven theories such as trickle down/supply side economics as religious dogma. "

Modern right winger or Trumpcuck: "Those liberals accept observations, rational thought, fact based reasoning and analysis as religious belief."

I don't know that either one is truly religious belief or dogma. But there is only one of the two for which the emphasis on the word "belief" even make sense.

I would ask you to honestly consider which side lies more. Although, for one side, it's not possible to honestly consider anything.

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?

Again:
Onvacation says

Just askin' not expecting you to answer because it blows up the CAGW narrative.

Onvacation says

So you got nothing but personal attack?

Is not a personal attack any more than your repeated proclamations and name calling. It's right at the level of this thread.

Long after the world has moved on, trolls will still be denying the obvious on the Internet.

“China’s thinking on the polar regions and global oceans demonstrates a level of ambition and forward planning that few, if any, modern industrial states can achieve,” Brady writes.

Funny I thought AGW was a chinese hoax. Looks like they believe their own BS.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-29/south-florida-s-real-estate-reckoning-could-be-closer-than-you-think Funny, some people in Florida don't think it's a hoax.

Onvacation says

Not exponentually. And the solar minimum is here.

People talking of solar minimum are idiots. The solar cycle is 11 years. Otherwise the sun is fairly stable.

Onvacation says

Now tell us why 8 inches of sea rise over 140 years is cataclysmic?

Of course 8 inches is the past and we know have a lot more people burning fuel, and CO2 is cumulative.
Of course 100 or 200 yrs are a short instant even in human history. But who cares about the future right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Of course 8 inches is the past and we know have a lot more people burning fuel, and CO2 is cumulative.

Thanks for engaging. I respect your opinion.

Can you answer the question on how a 4/100th of one degree difference in global temp can be measured Between 2015 and 2016? Satellite? Thermometers? Do you know?

Gotta go for a while but I will be back later to see anyones answers.

Sniper says

why don't yo-u just answer the questions? Are they too difficult to answer

Insanely stupid and irrelevant questions such as this ?

Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

Answer 4/100 of one degree.
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Not answered

HG is 100% right.

HappyGilmore says

you're not interested in the issue, but are simply trolling.

Here's another example of an onvacation brilliant "questiions"

Onvacation says

Four inches of sea level rise versus Manhattan underwater. One degree of temp rise versus exponential wet bulbing. No disrepancies?

Who is onvacation ? TPB perhaps ?

Hopefully Co2 will level off in time. But nobody was predicting manahtten underwater any time soon. I don't know if a hockey stick type increase is unfolding. But if it was, the beginning would look a lot like what we've seen so far. What kind of idiot wants to wait until it's too late and the catastrophy is fully in the rear view mirror before acknowledging the very significant possibility ?

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?

The dogs bark and the caravan goes by.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/the-political-arctic/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/the-economic-arctic/

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 ?


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

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?