patrick.net

Has anyone seen the "global average temperature anomaly" for 2019?

RC2006 says

Listening to reporter and Zimbabweans talk about how climate change causing starvation. Not overpopulation or deforestation which they themselves bring up.

Zimbabwe was considered the breadbasket of Africa, back when it was called Rhodesia and white peoples ran things. The black revolution came and took over and pushed out the white farmers and now the people own the land and starve in an agricultural paradise.
Serves them fucking right.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-our-intuition-about-sea-level-rise-is-wrong

And has Greta taken volcanic events into her no doubt meticulous calculations
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/would-a-supervolcano-eruption-wipe-us-out?utm_source=pocket-newtab

georgeliberte says

And has Greta taken volcanic events into her no doubt meticulous calculations

The people running the simulation have to keep things interesting.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/01/11/swedes-vote-climate-policy-biggest-waste-tax-payer-money-2019/
Swedes Vote Climate Policy Biggest Waste of Tax Payer Money in 2019

HEYYOU says

The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night."

Next time an alarmist squawks like chicken little, ask them, " how much has the temperature risen in the last century?"

"No amount of evidence will persuade an idiot"
Mark Twain

Co2 and warming are clearly disconnected.

Yeaaaaahhhh.... clearly

Total collapse of the "hoax"....

Onvacation says

"No amount of evidence will persuade an idiot"
Mark Twain

Heraclitusstudent says

Total collapse of the "hoax"....

So how much do you think the temperature has gone up in the last century?

The evidence, co2 rising temperature is not, is clear that manmade industrial co2 does not cause out of control global warming climate change.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep.

How much will the temperature have to fall before you admit you have been scammed?

Onvacation says

How much will the temperature have to fall before you admit you have been scammed?

You've been saying the same for how long? A decade? two?
How much do they have to rise before you admit you were scammed?

Heraclitusstudent says

You've been saying the same for how long? A decade? two?

A couple of years, from before the temperature peaked.Heraclitusstudent says

How much do they have to rise before you admit you were scammed?

At least a couple of degrees. Ever wonder why the alarmists don't display the hockey stick graph anymore?

Heraclitusstudent says

The people running the simulation have to keep things interesting.

@heraclitusstudent

You seem so sane on many topics. How did you become an alarmist? What triggered you to believe the hype over a one degree/century (if you BELIEVE the adjusted data) anomaly?

Onvacation says

the hype over a one degree/century

More like 2 degrees Fahrenheit in 50 years and from a time when far less carbon was being added to the atmosphere than today.

And you've got a few things like
www.youtube.com/embed/FLCgybStZ4g
that make me go "hummm".

I personally don't care either way. It's not my life that will most affected.

But what matters is not the next 50 yrs of my life. Humanity hopefully will extend for hundreds and thousands of years. I don't know on what planet 1 degree a century is acceptable.

But how easy to believe that there is a world wide conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades.... for what exactly??? To prevent you from driving a SUV? Why? It makes absolutely 0 sense.

Whereas, political idealists, driven by big money from relevant industries... that's a normal part of the scenery.

Heraclitusstudent says

But how easy to believe that there is a world wide conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades.... for what exactly??? To prevent you from driving a SUV? Why? It makes absolutely 0 sense.

I wouldn't say they are purposefully lying, but there is alot of group-think going on. Any scientist that shows skepticism about the hyperbolic predictions of the Climate doom-mongers is basically shunned and run out of academia. Just like trying to be a Conservative Professor at any US college is nearly impossible these days.

How many "smart people" fell for all of the other hyperbolic predictions of the last 30 years - predicting mass starvation, unlivable cities, overpopulation, peak oil, new ice age etc? I trust these people had humanity's best interest at heart and were scientific leaders in their fields - but they were all spectacularly wrong.

That said, there are definitely some Marxists and America haters like Russia and OPEC that are using Climate Change to try and knock us down a peg because we are now such a massive energy producer reducing their international power.

At the end of the day, until they come up with solutions that aren't worse than the disease, nothing meaningful will be done.

Heraclitusstudent says

But how easy to believe that there is a world wide conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades.... for what exactly??? To prevent you from driving a SUV? Why? It makes absolutely 0 sense.

It's mostly politicians who are spreading the alarm. Real scientists don't care about consensus.

100 Authors Against Einstein - Scientific 'Consensus' and Scepticism
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" - Albert Einstein

It's very simple:

Experiental Knowledge and Observing Actual Data in Real Life trumps Computer Models/Theories.

Heraclitusstudent says

But how easy to believe that there is a world wide conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades.... for what exactly??? To prevent you from driving a SUV? Why? It makes absolutely 0 sense.

What changed in the past 10 years that caused large numbers of the Medical Profession to suddenly declare Transgenderism wasn't a mental illness?

WHO just changed it in 2018
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/20/transgender-not-mental-illness-world-health-organization/717758002/

In fact this "news" article itself only gives one side of the story by repeating activist group tweets.

Not one datapoint changed: The link with child abuse, the link with high rates of suicide (regardless of familial/social acceptance), etc.

Skull measuring was hot for decades before real science prevailed: Those who thought cranial measurements were daft were a loud minority that didn't prevail until POLITICAL attitudes changed.

The Scientific Consensus is not perfect.

NoCoupForYou says

What changed in the past 10 years that caused large numbers of the Medical Profession to suddenly declare Transgenderism wasn't a mental illness?

It's not the medical profession that changed. It's the lobbies, the trans lobby just like the oil industry lobby. It's the politicians who exhausted their gay agenda. The only science so far that is almost complete BS and largely devoid on empirical facts is gender studies. With psychology a mixed basket.
The global warming story started way before the rise of SJW and woke culture.
I've people like onVacations on the Internet for like 20yrs.
Under Bush, these were the same people that didn't believe in evolution, for similar (tribal) reasons. Science is their out-group. End of argument.
Tons of evidence accumulated from all sides, but they haven't changed their tune by a iota.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's not the medical profession that changed. It's the lobbies, the trans lobby just like the oil industry lobby.

Here's what I need from the Global Warming Advocates:

Explain exactly what was wrong with your previous models of a decade/two decades/three decades ago, and demonstrate (not assert) that the problem has been fixed and the current modelling is accurate.

In other words, SHOW (with math and open data) why the sea level hasn't risen X inches and the temps haven't increased 2C

Simply pushing the effects down another decade is not an answer to valid questions about the proven inaccuracy of the model, which was off by a huge degree.

Claiming that something will grow 200 feet in two decades, but it only grows 40 feet, is a major fail.

Nothing was wrong with the models. They predicted a rise of temperatures and we saw a rise of temperatures. Models are never perfect but they ballparked efficiently what is happening. I.e. a problem that will be unacceptable in 100yrs unless we do something about it.

Plus it's no longer a question of model. We have now an empirical trend.

If you believe AGW is a hoax, explain how and why we can have a conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades???
For what reasons?

Heraclitusstudent says

I've people like onVacations on the Internet for like 20yrs

20 years and still no hockey stick. By now we were supposed to be several degrees warmer. The poles were supposed to melt. Manhattan and Florida were to be flooded. The Maldives and many other low elevation locations were to be underwater. Droughts and a desert California with year round snow free Sierras would be the new norm. Wet-bulb death was to be widespread..

None of this has happened.

The alarmists say, "Not yet. If we don't stop using carbon right now the temperature will rise a couple of degrees by the end of the century and our children will face all of the above".

The Malthusians always underestimate the ingenuity of humans.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you believe AGW is a hoax, explain how and why we can have a conspiracy of most climate scientists, in all countries, in many regimes, lying for decades???
For what reasons?

Name the top climate scientist in the world who you believe understands why we're going to fry if we don't cut back on our co2 emissions.

I was looking for a better word than fry to explain all of the fear and loathing of the future our indoctrination system has instilled in our youth. We will see more and more pathetic cases of Greta until we expose these pseudo-scientists for the frauds they are.

So who's the top guy so we can look more closely into his models and data?

Climatology is a fledgling field that has hardly been developed. The problem with most science and other fields of academia is that they try to piggy back on the reputations of fields like Physics, where we can put together 20 textbooks on various fields within the subject, 1000 pages long, and it will never have to change...because we know the subject in and out. Climatology is not like that...and likely never will be.

The very few that are out there are suffering from massive groupthink and stepping beyond their bounds. This idea that warming creates substandard living conditions hardly has any basis in reality.

Here's some scientific facts:

1. More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat....a lot more...like 17 times
2. Food production and industrial production has been positively correlated with warming the past 100 years.
3. Population growth has been positively correlated with warming the past 100 years.
4. The planet is actually greening due to climate change....which was confirmed by a group that studied satellites at the Liberal UC Berkeley.
5. People don't flee warmer climates...they flock to them.

Onvacation says

20 years and still no hockey stick.

Sorry, 1 degree C in 50 yrs is a hockey stick.
If you project it, it's a dramatic climate change in 100 yrs, which is a blink, even relative to the history of mankind.

theoakman says

5. People don't flee warmer climates...they flock to them.

Quite frankly this is a totally ridiculous.
We are in a situation now where population is booming, because of the same civilization that causes warming.
Population is dense enough in many areas that the slightest storm often kills one or more person. A large storm typically kills dozens.
The slightest drought in underdeveloped countries can kill thousands. We are NOT talking about large disruptions. People are killed easily.

At the same time, the population is large enough that we are overshooting many of the environment variables. Most fish species worth fishing are over-fished. Soils are eroded. Water tables are running out.

And we're just about to add 3 fucking billions .

Add to this a large disruption like changes in climate and the result will not be "people flocking to beaches in Florida." It will be famine, pestilence, wars and death.
If uncontrolled, and you get 2, 3, 5 degrees C increase, this will overwhelm in at least some places the capacity of populations to adapt. You will see order collapse resulting in chaos, and more problems.
Quite obviously this needs to be addressed and the sooner the better.

theoakman says

Climatology is a fledgling field that has hardly been developed. The problem with most science and other fields of academia is that they try to piggy back on the reputations of fields like Physics,

That's a ridiculous statement. So engineering is piggy backing on physics? The complex models of air flow around a plane is "fledging" because it is complex and applied rather than canonical theoretical physics?
Modeling climate effects is direct applied physics.
Ballparking the changes is a simple consequence of the laws of physics. You prevent heat from leaving... temperatures increase. This is fucking direct causality. There is no known effect that will prevent it. And there is a ton of empirical evidence that says it is happening.

Onvacation says

So who's the top guy so we can look more closely into his models and data?

Heraclitusstudent says

And we're just about to add 3 fucking billions .

Most, if not all of them are just going to starve to death in Africa.

Onvacation says

Onvacation says

So who's the top guy so we can look more closely into his models and data?

Alarmist's claim that "97% of climate scientist say climate change is real, manmade, and it's going to be catastrophic", but when you ask them who these scientist are... nothing.

"Alarmist's claim that "97% of climate scientist say climate change is real". This kind of 'proof' works for anything.
Cross-dressing tarot card reader claim that "97% of cross-dressing tarot card reader say cross-dressing tarot card reading is real

theoakman says

1. More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat....a lot more...like 17 times

And given that the higher, colder latitudes where this occurs are much more sparsely populated than the warmer hotter latitudes, the ratio would get even larger. Say, if you divided population density by cold weather deaths and compared it to population density divided by hot weather deaths.

I’m betting that it would be more like 100x more people dying per capita from cold than from heat.

I used to live in Alaska. The cold up there can kill you in a very short time, and many people do perish each year due to the cold, and their insufficient preparation to combat it. I’ve had hypothermia twice, and had more than a few close calls with cold weather survival. I learned very early that you either account for the weather or it will kill you.

At the same time, the population is large enough that we are overshooting many of the environment variables. Most fish species worth fishing are over-fished. Soils are eroded. Water tables are running out.

This is the real issue, not "carbon." The solution is to allow the 1st Word population stabilize to a level sustainable by renewable food and energy sources, and stop imports from countries that have lax pollution or non-sustainable harvests. Note, however, that the same people banging the carbon drum are against these two solutions, instead pushing for unfettered illegal immigration and no tariffs on China.

As a counter to HeadSet's "At the same time, the population is large enough that we are overshooting many of the environment variables. Most fish species worth fishing are over-fished. Soils are eroded. Water tables are running out." Malthusianism
https://reason.com/video/population-control-isnt-the-answer-to-climate-change-capitalism-is/

You seem to think using the laws of physics in their models makes it accurate. It doesn't. I used to run month long quantum mechanical calculations on single molecules using supercomputers. The complexity of a system quickly invalidates the accuracy of the calculation. The Earth is too complex to model.

theoakman says

You seem to think using the laws of physics in their models makes it accurate.

I said no such thing.

theoakman says

The complexity of a system quickly invalidates the accuracy of the calculation. The Earth is too complex to model.

You can't predict a single molecule... yet you can pressure a body of gas and predict exactly what the equilibrium is going to be. You can predict exactly how heat will spread in a body of water and how fast it melts ice. I can even describe the trajectory of an entire fucking planet a year in advance down to the millisecond. Why? Because aggregate calculations are far easier and accurate at their level than the details they are made of.