patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

No warming then?

Very little.
Tell us how a degree per century or 4/100 a year is a lot of warming?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are new shipping routes already planned?

How many have actually made it through the ice?

Questions yet to be answered:
Onvacation says

How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
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.

Onvacation says

So you got no answers.

I have three answers. They are all different, because you get a different answer depending on the temperature scale used. It's four if you consider Rankine worth mentioning. It's very simple math. Why don't you calculate the percent change in temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin. I'm curious to see if you can figure it out. For bonus points, tell us why you think anyone should give a shit what the answers are. For extra credit, define a new temperature scale with infinite percent increase since the baseline. That should be easy enough, and frankly no more arbitrary than Celsius, which is based on the temperature water freezes, or Fahrenheit, which is even more arbitrary.

Onvacation says

Still waiting for answers.

Already answered several times above. We can lead you to water but not force you to drink. Also we explained why this is irrelevant.
Climate is an average over at least 20 years. Fluctuations from year to year are irrelevant.


Onvacation says

Tell us how a degree per century or 4/100 a year is a lot of warming?

We already explained that:
- CO2 is accumulating
- we generate a lot more now than in the past.
So that the expected warming is far more than the rear view mirror.
But of course you will continue to ignore this fact, because it turns out you are just as intellectually dishonest as Piggy.
You ask questions, but you really don't want the answers.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Onvacation says

So you got no answers.

I have three answers. They are all different, because you get a different answer depending on the temperature scale used. It's four if you consider Rankine worth mentioning. It's very simple math. Why don't you calculate the percent change in temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin. I'm curious to see if you can figure it out. For bonus points, tell us why you think anyone should give a shit what the answers are. For extra credit, define a new temperature scale with infinite percent increase since the baseline. That should be easy enough, and frankly no more arbitrary than Celsius, which is based on the temperature water freezes, or Fahrenheit, which is even more arbitrary.

So you got no answers. Are you ready to admit that there has been little to no warming absolutely or by percentage?
Very little warming.

Manbearpig! Manbearpig! The coming maunder minimum - not if but when - will eviscerate the church of global warming. Bunch of fcking money wasted on junk science.

mell says

The coming maunder minimum - not if but when - will eviscerate the church of global warming.

The sun today, hardly any sunspots for months:



The "Alarmists" will also blame the lack of sunspots on Global Warming, oops, Climate Change too!

So many climate researchers on here. So many experts. Why not post up the universities that you’re tenured at so we can check your standing? Or how about linking us to your body of work?

DoofusRicky says

the prediction of an ice free arctic in the summer

The reality is much different.
How many ships transited the northwest passage in 2017? Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens?
The northwest passage is a sailors dream. It will save thousands of dollars in shipping costs if the ice melts. IF the ice melts.
For now the NW passage is just a dream. The reality is less than 300 ships have transited the passage EVER. Unless we get more warming the NW passage will remain a dream.

How did we get to debating if and when the northwest passage will be a viable shipping route. Does anyone want to argue that? Start a new thread.

How much CO2=How much temperature increase.

If CO2 = X ppm, then Earth Temp = Y Degrees. With Backtests, since we have about 100 years of direct temp measurements globally, and also know the CO2 levels to a high degree of confidence.

If Modelers can't answer that, their Model is worthless.

Onvacation says

How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Answers so far:
The earth has risen less than 2 degrees and the sea has risen less than one foot over the last 150 years.
The temperature rose 4/100 of one degree plus or minus 8/100 of one degree between 2015, the second hottest, and 2016 the hottest year ever. The numbers for 2017 are still being processed.
How 4/100 of one degree measured all over the world can be accurate or even claimed as record warm when the temp very well have been 4/100 of a degree colder.
Rew says

Onvacation says

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

You confuse a single data point with a net trend.

If I have a sheet of steel, 1 inch thick and 1 square mile surface area, and I raise the temperature of a single localized point on that plate to 100 degrees ... how much energy did that take? What if I raised the entire surface 40 degrees over the entire plate? How much energy did that take? How much net heat is transferred to the air as the plate cools to the air temperature in each case?

Correct me if I am wrong Rew, but I believe the argument is just because most of the record highs were recorded last century doesn't mean the WHOLE world is not warmer now.
The only one ever to brave an answer to the ideal human habitation quesion was Dan from Florida; he wanted 2 degrees cooler.

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

anon_61c8a says

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

There is no ideal. Humans can have fun in a wide range of places.
I like to go windsurfing in maui and skiing in Colorado. My wife's family owns an island in northern Maine so we spend a week there every summer.
Humans are adaptable.

Onvacation says

anon_61c8a says

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

There is no ideal. Humans can have fun in a wide range of places.
I like to go windsurfing in maui and skiing in Colorado. My wife's family owns an island in northern Maine so we spend a week there every summer.
Humans are adaptable.

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

anon_aa05b says

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

You picked a small number of vacation destinations as places to visit. There are huge areas that would be absolute shit to live in. So, humans are quite adaptable, and some like some places more than others, but some places are universally shitty.
The question becomes, what happens with global warming at 1 oC, 2 oC, 3 oC, 4 oC, 5 oC? What happens to areas that are currently nice places to live? Do some of them turn uninhabitable? How many? Does it cause civil unrest on top of local suffering? With only 1 oC, we are already seeing some new weather patterns that may be caused by the warming that we have seen. We know that sea levels do not change linearly with temperature. The increase slowly until they reach a tipping point and then they increase dramatically. That's kind of obvious from the historic record.
Do we just believe you when you proclaim that there is nothing to worry about? Our military cares a lot about it. People are betting on an ice free arctic with real money (shipping lane discussion).
Many scientists around the world are putting their efforts into developing alternative energy systems, mitigating the effects of global warming, and understanding the risks. That only happens because people take the problem seriously. If everyone put their heads in the ground and ignored the problem, we'd be fucked (more so than we may already be).

Onvacation says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?

Neither, and using a false choice fallacy to try to win an argument is childish.

Here is a question for you:

Do you believe that releasing CO2 that has been sequestered over tens of millions of years in a few short decades will have ZERO effect? If so, why? If you believe there will be an effect, what do YOU think it will be?

Onvacation says

anon_aa05b says

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

Non sequitur.

Onvacation says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

This is why the whole Global Warming hype and hoax is such a joke, and why the 1 degree rise in temps over 130 years is a nothing burger.

People live full time in the Arctic tundra and people live full time in tropical rain forests. It's amazing how people can adapt.

But the "Alarmists" want billions of dollars thrown at "fixing" Global Warming because the temperatures changed 0.04 degrees in a year.

anon_403c8 says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

Non sequitur.

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

The point that you fail to address is that a hot desert is inhospitable and no large populations have ever thrived there. In addition, talking about extremes is not what is important. Yes, a small number of humans can live in the arctic, rainforest or desert. The real question is what happens at the margins. What economic impact will flooding coastal areas have on our country? Warmer does not equal better for growing crops. It takes water and excess heat kills corn. What happens to populations and countries that become uninhabitable or partly uninhabitable?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are new shipping routes already planned?

We are not talking of scientists. These are business people. Are they lying too?

Sorry, but while it is interesting evidence, the proof will be if it is viable by 2040. Those business people say, no it is not viable now, but maybe in the future. There are many articles saying 2040 or 2050 at the earliest. This is not proof of anything. It is an economic benefit if global warming is real, and it has been far less than the models predicted.

It has been largely as model predicted, 2015 appears on that interactive map, and you guys are fighting a rear guard battle.
You had your days in 2004.
Now every year that passes make you sound more and more like idiots refusing stodgily to bow to reality.

The Russians, the Chinese even, all invest massively in the arctic because they can see - everyone can see - where this is going.

Heraclitusstudent says

It has been largely as model predicted, 2015 appears on that interactive map, and you guys are fighting a rear guard battle.
You had your days in 2004.
Now every year that passes make you sound more and more like idiots refusing stodgily to bow to reality.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/newest-ipcc-cmip5-climate-models-fail-at-global-temperature-predictions-too.html

Yeah. Except global temperatures look like this (not flat since 2000):

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

anon_13e7f says

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

Even though I am skeptical, I too find it equally arrogant when people say there is no climate change at all. The climate is always changing. The issues are whether it is caused by man, by how much and what are the real threats if any. I have heard multiple speakers claim adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases crop yields.

anon_13e7f says

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

<
If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

I think that is a valid criticism of the skeptic side. Here is what you are missing:
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true. Sorry, in no way did the alarmist models come true. If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model and it is unfair to then criticize someone for "not believing" in climate change. This is science, you believe in things that haven't been proven. If they have been proven, it is not a belief, and I knew an arrogant Oceanography professor at SDSU who in the 90s actually had the gall to claim that man-made global warming was law, not theory.
3. Don't believe me, this is what we had to grow up with.......

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of mankind.

Malcolm says

in no way did the alarmist models come true

I have not heard of any alarming scenario that came before 2100. The range I've heard is 1 foot to 2 meters by 2100. But it doesn't stop there - unless we stop.

Malcolm says

If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model

Except there is no "a model" there are "models" that are not static. They are refined constantly with new knowledge, and what they are saying is ever more certain.

Heraclitusstudent says

   

The Russians, the Chinese even, all invest massively in the arctic because they can see - everyone can see - where this is going.

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

The climate is always changing. Humans are poisoning the environment. I have never argued different.

I have argued against CAGW. I think man is able to adapt. Now if only we can stop fighting each other.

Onvacation says

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/cargo-ship-crosses-the-arctic-without-aid-of-ice-breaker-for-first-time-ever/

anon_13e7f says

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

You missed the point. The climate is always changing.
The alarmist predicted multiple degrees and multiple feet of sea rise. The alarmist also thought that they could predict and control the climate by limiting co2.
As we are still a quite cool planet and the sea has rose much less than a tide the alarmists have pushed the doomsday out to next century.

I call bs on CAGW.

Heraclitusstudent says

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of ma...

1. It is one thing to say as a blanket statement that my points have all been refuted, what points and by who? I don't read denier blogs, I actually look at both sides to satisfy my curiosity.
2. Point 2, all you are doing is speculating. Not science.
3. You claim no alarmist scenarios before 2100? Try by the 1990s, I even provided the tape. Watch it, learn it, live it.
4. You say there is no model, but earlier you say "the theory" all the models went into a theory, they are all overstated. I can provide videos of that as well. I have compiled a pretty vast group of source videos dealing with every element.

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

1 I get that it is a religion to you. Journalists were reporting on the science. All of the predictions failed to materialize. ie, no climate refugees, plenty of polar bears. It is your side that has been debunked and I have many videos made by former colleagues who are disgusted by how the science has been hijacked because it is a "gravy train".
2 Like I have said to many others, predictive theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.