patrick.net

Tim Aurora says

That pretty much puts it as a fact.

Nope. Not a fact unless it can be replicated though experiment. It’s not even a reputable theory until the facts match up nicely to the projected result.

rd6B says

Tim Aurora says

So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

I think that there are perhaps 100 or 200 people on Earth who can understand arguments for/against global warming competently. I am not one of them, and neither are any other Patnetters from what I can see.

It's not that hard. You don't need to understand everything in the realm of this field, what you need to have is a basic understanding of complex models and how the addition of just one new variable can completely alter it and that the model becomes more and more imprecise the more variables you have in it. That's enough to come to the conclusion that nobody can say with any certainty what the climate will do the next 100, let alone 1000 years and more. If you're into statistics and the power of certainty you can easily derive that none of these models would pass the statistical smell test. It doesn't mean they aren't useful, but they are definitely not useful in predicting the climate over the next decades with even the slightest certainty.

But. I did a science in my apartment. It proves people are bad.

Seriously my coral hates me. I come back from a trip and the Zooxanthellae have been throwing a fucking party.

NoCoupForYou says

One of the greatest disproofs of a theory is when predictions are far, far off from reality down the road.

The problem of denialists is that there are literally tons of - not theoretical but EMPIRICAL - evidence that the earth is warming because of CO2 emitted by humans. There are piles of data supporting this conclusion, coming from many different fields, many different teams, in many different countries.

Even worse: denialists have NO EXPLANATION and NO THEORY WHATSOEVER that fits ANY part of the data.

You hear the morons on the internet change their story literally daily:
- "it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change
- "there is no warming": well melting ice world wide, temp measurements, etc... begs to differ
- "it happened before": well ok, that's fucking meaningless
- "there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.
- "the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

It doesn't make sense for the USA to shut down one of our few coal-powered electric plants when China is creating more than a dozen new ones each year. Working on harnessing nuclear fusion and then carbon capture (once we have the unlimited energy of fusion power) makes more sense than crippling the USA economy to have a miniscule effect on the total world-wide emissions.

No global warming doomsayer has a viable plan.

Hey, maybe Trump is right after all... move manufacturing back to the USA. Then we can insist on low-carbon manufacturing techniques. Saves on transportation too.

Hey, maybe Trump is right after all... halt most immigration to the USA so that our population gradually decreases. We'll be emitting less carbon from that alone. Further, as we decrease energy needs (as a factor of lower population) we can abandon the most-carbon-intensive practices. Less electrical need: shut down the coal-burning plants first and fall back to the less-carbon-intense power plants. Lower population: people can live in moderate-climate areas instead of crowding into Florida (tropics) and Arizona (desert) with high A/C usage.

Heraclitusstudent says

You hear the morons on the internet change their story literally daily:

Yup

Heraclitusstudent says

- "there is no warming

Not much.

Heraclitusstudent says

- "it happened before":

Yup. The climate has changed throughout history and prehistory. Ever hear of the Roman and medieval warming? There was a little ice age. The temperature has risen a degree in a century. One f'in degree and you want to stop modern civilization.

I don't deny the temperature has changed less than 2 degrees in the last century. I don't deny that the warmest temperatures ever recorded on earth were last century. I don't deny that the earth has been cooling for the last few years. I don't deny that the alarmists predictions have been wildly wrong. Do you deny these facts?

Heraclitusstudent says

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Who said that?

Heraclitusstudent says

there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.

This one statement reveals a PROFOUND lack of understanding of climate and weather. Volcanoes cool the earth down, usually a hemisphere at a time due to prevailing winds, and a large volcanic eruption can cause a significant short term effect of a degree or more in average change. This has happened and been measure many many times, and the science is thoroughly understood: sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere blocks a portion of sunlight, cooling the earth.

The fact that you want to preach to us that we don’t understand climate when you don’t even understand one of the basic drivers of immediate climate change is revealing.
Really reinforces the stereotype of people who think their Bachelor of Arts qualifies them as a climate science expert.

Shaman says

The fact that you want to preach to us that we don’t understand climate when you don’t even understand one of the basic drivers of immediate climate change is revealing.

More proof that global warming climate change is more a religion than a science. The green new deal is based on socialism not science.

From Judith Curry

Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.

While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.

While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015."

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

Heraclitusstudent says

"there is no warming": well melting ice world wide, temp measurements, etc... begs to differ

Yes, if anyone says there is no current warming, that person is biased as we do have warming trend currently

Heraclitusstudent says

"it happened before": well ok, that's fucking meaningless

agreed

Heraclitusstudent says

the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

here I vehemently disagree - correlation is not causation, and models DO suck

Tim Aurora says

In one post you accuse of the 97% Scientific community being lax and questioning their past credibility record and on another you accuse them of being a religion

Science isn't a meeting of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Womyn Against Patriarchy group. Consensus has no role in science, only fact and justifiable conclusions.

The fact (not my opinion) that a huge quantity of data used in climate models are unquantifiable ex rectum placeholders makes the modelling unscientific, little more than a thinking tool. The fact that modellers like Michael Mann fiercely resist publishing their assumptions and datasets to be reviewed and criticized only amplifies that opinion.

We've already provided examples of scientific consensus that turned out to be false in this very thread, such as the belief, that lasted for two generations, that Cancer had a viral origin. Another one would be that schizophrenia was caused by "Bad Family Dynamics", another totally exploded consensus belief.

Any abstract concept that has a well-developed Eskatonic attitude, complete with punishment of sin against the Deity (Earth), resembles more religion than Science.

rd6B says

Yes, if anyone says there is no current warming, that person is biased as we do have warming trend currently

The temp peaked in 2016 which was warmer than 2015 by .04 degrees. 2017 and 2018 were colder than 2016 and 2019 looks to be colder still. If there is a trend it is stable or cooling.

If you want to call it a warming trend, ok. But the alarmists predicted multiple degrees hotter by now and the whole premise of global warming is based on a flawed theory that manmade greenhouse gas, mainly co2, would cause catastrophic warming, melting of the poles, and the death and misery of millions.

Ice-free Poles don't mean shit for life on Earth, we know this for a fact. In fact if Antarctica and Greenland melt and huge swaths of Siberia and Canada get warmer, we'll see an explosion of plant and animal life.

We had some of the largest land animals and plant life, mile-long giant clam colonies, etc. in Earth History when there was no polar ice for hundreds of millions of year, as well as CO2 levels in excess of 1500ppm.

Onvacation says

The temp peaked in 2016 which was warmer than 2015 by .04 degrees. 2017 and 2018 were colder than 2016 and 2019 looks to be colder still. If there is a trend it is stable or cooling.

That is somewhat inconsequential, as overall trend is warming. There will always be a year or few breaking the trend.

Onvacation says

But the alarmists predicted multiple degrees hotter by now

Yes, and that shows their models are not correct, and that we do not have computational power yet to have reliable models. It also shows that if you cry wolf, political decision will be made to fund your research, which selects for scientists crying wolf

Tim Aurora says

Onvacation, I am not sure what are you arguing

Is it not obvious that I am arguing that global warming is a scam?

Tim Aurora says

. In one post you accuse of the 97% Scientific community being lax and questioning their past credibility record and on another you accuse them of being a religion

It's not the scientists. It's the politicians and media who have scared our ignorant children into BELIEVING that the end is near because our modern lifestyle is killing the planet. Facts be damned, previous predictions ignored, the alarmists have proclaimed the end is a decade away, for decades.

Tim Aurora says

But it is not just you but the entire deniers who are just throwing arguments and looking for something to stick.

Why not call us heretics?

Do you deny that co2 has gone way up but temperature has not?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

- "there is no warming

Not much.

Not yet...

Shaman says

Heraclitusstudent says

there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.

This one statement reveals a PROFOUND lack of understanding of climate and weather. Volcanoes cool the earth down, usually a hemisphere at a time due to prevailing winds, and a large volcanic eruption can cause a significant short term effect of a degree or more in average change.

Are volcanoes cooling the earth down now? Nope. So what are we talking about?
I'm talking about the nuts that claim the CO2 increase we OBSERVE comes from volcanoes. It doesn't. Period.

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Who said that?

You:
Onvacation says

Is it not obvious that I am arguing that global warming is a scam?

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C for centuries without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Heraclitusstudent says

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Definitely a valid question, but we're def not there yet IMO and it looks like warming has slowed as we haven't made any new records in the last 2 years and 2019 is likely going to end even cooler again.

rd6B says

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed.

rd6B says

Heraclitusstudent says

the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

here I vehemently disagree - correlation is not causation, and models DO suck

Really?
- can we agree humans emit CO2?
- can we agree there is more CO2 now in the atmosphere than 50 yrs ago? - observed
- can we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? - observed in laboratories
- can we agree that we see more reflected heat from the atmosphere in the frequency where we expect this due to CO2? - observed
- can we calculate the extra heat that will not radiate in space at the scale of earth? - calculated
- can we observe extra heat in fact being present? - observed
When you know the exact mechanism, and you observe EVERY STEP of the mechanism in fact happening, doesn't claiming "correlation is not causation" become UTTER BS?

Heraclitusstudent says

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed.

As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

Heraclitusstudent says

- can we agree humans emit CO2?
- can we agree there is more CO2 now in the atmosphere than 50 yrs ago? - observed
- can we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? - observed in laboratories
- can we agree that we see more reflected heat from the atmosphere in the frequency where we expect this due to CO2? - observed
- can we calculate the extra heat that will not radiate in space at the scale of earth? - calculated
- can we observe extra heat in fact being present? - observed
When you know the exact mechanism, and you observe EVERY STEP of the mechanism in fact happening, doesn't claiming "correlation is not causation" become UTTER BS?

1. Please explain if more CO2 in atmosphere causes positive or negative warming feedback loops. I can't answer that personally.
2. Please explain why world has not warmed nearly as much as predicted in the past - this is also a fact. We were supposed to lose nearly all Artic ice etc by now. That I can answer - models suck and I have no doubt that current ones do also

mell says

That's not true. As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

There is no maunder minimum, or larger variations happening now.
We also know for a fact for example that polar regions that DO NOT SEE THE SUN FOR 6 MONTHS A YEAR are the places that see the most warming. This is totally consistent with greenhouse effect and totally INCONSISTENT with a variation in sun intensity.

So I'll repeat again:
We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed NOW.

rd6B says

1. Please explain if more CO2 in atmosphere causes positive or negative warming feedback loops. I can't answer that personally.

I can answer the obvious: it just creates a greenhouse effect. More heat on the earth than otherwise.
If you think there can be an effect that can lead more heat to lead to less heat, then by all mean, detail it in a model, quantify it, make sure it fits with thousands of observations and publish it.
Any armchair scientists on the Internet have some opinions, but I don't see anyone actually having a credible theory of how this could happen in a way that FITS OBSERVED FACTS.
Why is that? Denialism is just FUD. Why is there actually no competing scientific theory?
And as a reminder the facts we do see are warming, not cooling.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

That's not true. As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

There is no maunder minimum, or larger variations happening now.
We also know for a fact for example that polar regions that DO NOT SEE THE SUN FOR 6 MONTHS A YEAR are the places that see the most warming. This is totally consistent with greenhouse effect and totally INCONSISTENT with a variation in sun intensity.

So I'll repeat again:
We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed NOW.

And I'm saying the warming we have seen will be eclipsed 1000-fold by any local or maunder minimum. I'm not denying greenhouse gases can contribute to warming, of course which gases would those be, maybe not CO2 primarily as there are many, but the effect so far has not been dramatic at all. Do you think it's time for alarmism and carbon taxes going bonkers based on a relatively small warming of global temperatures over the past decades?

Heraclitusstudent says

how this could happen in a way that FITS OBSERVED FACTS.

The warming observed currently does not fit the models, so proponents of AGW are at best little less wrong as opponents.. So, why should I believe the alarmists who get funded for being alarmists?
BTW I am not denying that humans do warm the climate. What I do not know is if their influence is 1% or 99%, and since models suck (we know this for a fact, as the predictions of even 10 yrs ago have not panned out), I am inclined to not believe them.

Heraclitusstudent says

detail it in a model, quantify it, and publish it.

Not my field, and additionally since it is not my field I do not know where previous models went wrong. I just know they are wrong.

So far 2019 seems to be trending towards the 2nd or 3rd warmest year according to the pundits (quick search on latest updates from a few months ago). We shall see where it lands, I think it will be 3rd warmest according to their measurements. Certainly no record this year.

mell says

Heraclitusstudent says

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Definitely a valid question, but we're def not there yet IMO and it looks like warming has slowed as we haven't made any new records in the last 2 years and 2019 is likely going to end even cooler again.

Hard to say...but what we do know is the current narrative of food losses is complete nonsense. At this point given the current trends ..this could possibly be an issue 1000 years down the road

I would be interested in the people on this thread staying what science courses they've taken.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why is there actually no competing scientific theory?

There are. Some climate scientists predict the coming solar minimum will cause the planet to cool.
Heraclitusstudent says

And as a reminder the facts we do see are warming, not cooling.

From NASA
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.31°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)

The warmest year was 2016. The second warmest year was 2015. Then 2017at 3rd. 2018 was the 4th warmest year EVER! The entire warming since 1880 was 0.8 degrees. The cooling since 2016 is 0.2 degrees, one quarter of the total warming Greta and the rest of the alarmists are concerned about.

The coming years will determine if the trend continues to be toward cooling.

Tim Aurora says

I think now you are getting into " if you are not perfect , you are not right" mode. All the models explained loss of Artic ice and yes we are losing ice

extent is wrong, and not just wrong - very, very wrong. So...we were supposed to have global cooling in 70's; in 90's we had 20 years before temperature goes out of whack; in 00's ice was supposed to melt completely in 10 years. Why would I believe this? Fool me once, and so on.