The Climate thread

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

13 hours ago, mop said:

what a thread.

 

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

 

 

1. Nobody who knows what they are talking about ever made that prediction.

2. Even if they did, there were many other predictions that were different.

3. All those predictions predicted decreasing levels of Arctic sea ice.

4. Arctic sea ice is decreasing, this is an undeniable fact. (If you continue to deny this fact, you should be dismissed and ignored, because you are irredeemable, some might say deplorable.) This leads to...

5. Predictions were basically correct.

 

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

On 9/2/2019 at 7:01 PM, GSU&UT said:

Yep, THAT argument in particular is insane to me. China is aggressively trying to build out rail and move to renewable energy because they understand exactly how fucked humanity is in the next 50 to 100 years. You can't point the finger at China anymore and I'll be India will be doing the same.

Also, China and India have correctly pointed out that we should also be looking at this on a per person basis rather  than just output on a countrywide/continental basis, and not so much so that they can get away with more due to their populations but as a way to curtail the holier than thou rhetoric from "the west".

[Foosters 18286]

15 hours ago, mop said:

what a thread.

 

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

I remember reading claims back in 2008 that Obama wanted to take everyone's guns away. And yet between 2012 and 2017, U.S. civilians bought 135 million guns.

I therefore conclude that democrats have no intention to reduce or restrict gun ownership in the US.

I like this game.

[wildcat09 29597]

Mop and EMAW will end up dying in category 5 hurricanes and their last thoughts will be "this still isn't evidence of global warming, haha take that libs!"

[Dirk X West 772]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Mop and EMAW will end up dying in category 5 hurricanes and their last thoughts will be "this still isn't evidence of global warming, haha take that libs!"

"But there have always been hurricanes, right?"

[tantric superman 4668]

Interesting little interview on the new yorker radio hour.

Kid is kind of spooky but really kind of beautiful how she talks about her Asperger's and helps her view this stuff in a dispassionate way.  Maybe it's all a gimmick but kid is smart.

[Mdhorn 6166]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Mop and EMAW will end up dying in category 5 hurricanes and their last thoughts will be "this still isn't evidence of global warming, haha take that libs!"

Drowning to own the libs. We need more of this please. Tens of millions more. 

[hpslugga 4097]

17 hours ago, mop said:

what a thread.

 

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[Brisketexan 106975]

17 hours ago, mop said:

what a thread.

 

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

 

16 hours ago, elfenix said:

seems like there's a clear trend here, but i dunno.

 

These posts in direct sequence.....that's just pure and simple ass-kicking.  I mean, like the kind you laugh at, because a dude just got fucking whooped.

[Incredulity 11880]

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

We get it.  You absolutely love the smell of your own farts.

[Cacti 191]

21 hours ago, mop said:

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen.

 

8 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

1. Nobody who knows what they are talking about ever made that prediction.

The prediction to which Mop is referring probably is the one made in 2008 by former lead NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, a.k.a. “the godfather of global warming science”, when he said that “in five to 10 years, the Artic will be free of sea ice in the summer.” Or he could be referring to a prediction from former NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, who, in 2007 said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012…”

Climate scientists are probably spot-on concerning long-term predictions but they are all over the map when making short-term forecasts. In any case, Mop was correct in saying that a specific prediction—made by noted scientists—was wrong.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Cacti

[mop 18]

June 27, 2008:

"

By Alan Duke
CNN

(CNN) — The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Scientists say it’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole.

Scientists say it’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole.

“We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is ‘does the North Pole melt out this summer?’ and it may well,” said the center’s senior research scientist Mark Serreze.

It’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen last autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said.

The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage — the sea route through the Arctic Ocean — opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history.

“What we’ve seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up,” Serreze said.

Specific weather patterns will determine whether the North Pole’s ice cover melts completely this summer, he said."

[mop 18]

I don't question that Arctic ice has decreased significantly since 1979.  We had just finished over 3 decades of global cooling....it isn't surprising ice in the Arctic was high. 

As for hurricanes:

"13 yrs ending 2018 had fewest Cat3+ CONUS landfalls since 1900 with 3"

Roger Pielke Jr.

 

we just finished the quietest period for US Hurricanes (which make up a very larger percentage of global cyclone energy)...by some counts over 50%.  Hurricanes have been on the decline...yet every time we DO have a hurricane, we are told it is due to "Climate Change."

[elfenix 34759]

Edited September 17, 2019 by elfenix

[Bookman 4766]

 

[mop 18]

10 hours ago, elfenix said:

 

Yep.  Notice how we have been warming for 150 years.  You do realize that Climate Scientists are in virtual unison in saying that we didn't start affecting the temperatures until post 1950.  So we have certainly warmed....no one debates that.  The questions are:

-how much is our warming due to anthropogenic causation?            I think some of it is.  

-How much of our warming has been negative/positive?                 Our warming thus far has been overwhelmingly positive as we have been leaving the Little Ice Age....

-What policies can we embrace to help put off future warming?  This is quite unclear. Is innovation and adaption the answer or is it major steps of prevention? It may be come combination of the two, but if we want the developing world to care about the universe, we had better help them grow wealthier and for now, the involves abundant fossil fuels.  

 

[mop 18]

To be honest ElFenix, the fact that you posted that graph reveals that you know very little about the discussion.  It is sort of stunning to me that you felt that graph revealed anything beyond what we all agree on.  The world has warmed.  Even virtually all of your most ardent skeptics wouldn't deny that.  A graph doesn't show causation...it doesn't reveal much except that the trend has been upwards since the mid-19th Century. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

13 minutes ago, mop said:

To be honest ElFenix, the fact that you posted that graph reveals that you know very little about the discussion.  It is sort of stunning to me that you felt that graph revealed anything beyond what we all agree on.  The world has warmed.  Even virtually all of your most ardent skeptics wouldn't deny that.  A graph doesn't show causation...it doesn't reveal much except that the trend has been upwards since the mid-19th Century. 

Yeah, and it's warming so rapidly at the current moment that you'd have to be a weapons grade dipshit to believe we aren't contributing.

[elfenix 34759]

mop: we'd just been in 30 years of cooling

elfenix: *posts graph showing we weren't*

mop: you clearly don't understand what you're talking about!

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

2 hours ago, mop said:

 

Yep.  Notice how we have been warming for 150 years.  You do realize that Climate Scientists are in virtual unison in saying that we didn't start affecting the temperatures until post 1950.  So we have certainly warmed....no one debates that.  The questions are:

-how much is our warming due to anthropogenic causation?            I think some of it is.  

-How much of our warming has been negative/positive?                 Our warming thus far has been overwhelmingly positive as we have been leaving the Little Ice Age....

-What policies can we embrace to help put off future warming?  This is quite unclear. Is innovation and adaption the answer or is it major steps of prevention? It may be come combination of the two, but if we want the developing world to care about the universe, we had better help them grow wealthier and for now, the involves abundant fossil fuels.  

 

 

and you are on ignore. Congratulations, you have joined the esteemed company of TexasHammer and Crispy.

[mop 18]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

mop: we'd just been in 30 years of cooling

elfenix: *posts graph showing we weren't*

mop: you clearly don't understand what you're talking about!

You didn't look at your graph did you?  the graph shows cooling from 1940 to around 1975.  I read it correctly.  Can you?  

 

[mop 18]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Yeah, and it's warming so rapidly at the current moment that you'd have to be a weapons grade dipshit to believe we aren't contributing.

This graph is ridiculous. It is a projection out to 2100.  you need to cut off the last spike upwards and then you have a somewhat helpful graph. This graph is Michael Mann level stupid.  

[GSU&UT 1799]

Just now, mop said:

This graph is ridiculous. It is a projection out to 2100.  you need to cut off the last spike upwards and then you have a somewhat helpful graph. This graph is Michael Mann level stupid.  

Where ever you graduated college from, I'd recommend that you should probably return your degree and ask for a refund.

[mop 18]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Where ever you graduated college from, I'd recommend that you should probably return your degree and ask for a refund.

are you able to engage in the discussion or only in childish insults?  I graduated from The University of Texas.  I won't be returning my degree. I guess I graduated during a time when I was taught to think for myself?  ; )

[mop 18]

again...I am not questioning whether or not we have warmed. We certainly have. That is really not up for debate. What is up for debate is how much we have warmed, what percentage of that warming is due to anthropogenic causes and how to address these issues.  

[fattyflattie 4640]

On 9/2/2019 at 1:31 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

I also don't see anything about Australian beef tasting "terrible." I've never had it as far as I know but I've never heard that before. "Terrible?" Really? I doubt that. 

This is the first post I read as I opened this thread, I don’t know what this pertains to, but I can tell you Oz beef does indeed suck.  I was there for a stint building Gorgon. In fact I don’t have anything else bad to say about the place, but their beef was garbage.  Carry on. 

[huge 3831]

23 minutes ago, mop said:

You didn't look at your graph did you?  the graph shows cooling from 1940 to around 1975.  I read it correctly.  Can you?  

 

[elfenix 34759]

40 minutes ago, mop said:

You didn't look at your graph did you?  the graph shows cooling from 1940 to around 1975.  I read it correctly.  Can you?  

 

that's a flat spot between two warming periods.  that's not cooling. 

[zork 629]

20 minutes ago, elfenix said:

that's a flat spot between two warming periods.  that's not cooling. 

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

[Dahobbs 18345]

1 minute ago, zork said:

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

He is a fucking idiot arguing idiotic things that he doesnt understand nor care too. 

[wildcat09 29597]

1 minute ago, zork said:

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

No he's not.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

He is a fucking idiot arguing idiotic things that he doesnt understand nor care too. 

so put him on ignore.

[Dahobbs 18345]

Just now, zork said:

so put him on ignore.

No. Stupid and ignorant people have felt far too empowered to promote their stupid and ignorant ideas. They need to be shamed back into the shadows. All of them. 

[Dahobbs 18345]

4 hours ago, mop said:

 

Yep.  Notice how we have been warming for 150 years.  You do realize that Climate Scientists are in virtual unison in saying that we didn't start affecting the temperatures until post 1950.  

Uh, where the fuck did you get that idea? 

[elfenix 34759]

53 minutes ago, zork said:

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

i have not negged mop you catcher

Edited September 17, 2019 by immamac
Homophobic language is a good way to go on vacation for a week

[zork 629]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i have not negged mop you catcher

my bad.  is being a catcher wrong?  is that a gay shaming comment?  not that I am a catcher btw.  I was a shitty third baseman.

[elfenix 34759]

it's the opposite of fucker

[Dahobbs 18345]

Good read here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

I'm going to assume Mop misunderstood reports regarding our confidence that 100% of warming has been human driven since the 1950s. That isn't a limiter, but rather the period for which we have near scientific certainty than all warming (not just some of it) was driven by human rather than natural causes. The 1950s were chosen for a number of reasons, including that we started to get very robust climate and CO2 data around that time. We still are confident that most, if not all warming since the late 1800s has been caused by humans. And many believe that for hundreds or thousands of years before that human activity resulted in a significantly warmer climate than would have otherwise occurred. However, human driven change wasn't enough to completely override natural cool mechanisms until the late 1800s. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

No. Stupid and ignorant people have felt far too empowered to promote their stupid and ignorant ideas. They need to be shamed back into the shadows. All of them. 

How else can one sustain an echo chamber anyhow? 

[Dirk X West 772]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

How else can one sustain an echo chamber anyhow? 

Shutting out people who hold purely subjective opinions that differ from your own is an echo chamber.  That's not what's happening here.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

We still are confident that most, if not all warming since the late 1800s has been caused by humans. 

But you don't know why the last ice age happened. You don't know why it ended. You don't know why the medieval warm period happened. You don't know why there was a temperature spike in the 1930's. You don't have a single example of the CO2 levels driving global temperature, nor of any time in the past where there was a runaway increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2. AGW is an hyposthesis entirely lacking in evidentiary support.

What you do have is a statistically flawed model with questionable data inputs whose predictions (a) have a 95% confidence interval that do not include the current temperature, and (b) predict, with a 95% confidence level, in 50 years that temperature will stay exactly the same as it is today.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

i have not negged mop you catcher

I don't neg much, but zork's impassioned plea convinced me that mop needed a neg. 

[zork 629]

52 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

I don't neg much, but zork's impassioned plea convinced me that mop needed a neg. 

haha

[mop 18]

 

Notice that anthropogenic forcing is minimal up to around 1960.  

Seriously, you guys can't back your stuff up. Dahobbs, you appear to know very little about this subject.

[zork 629]

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/

[Dahobbs 18345]

7 hours ago, mop said:

 

Notice that anthropogenic forcing is minimal up to around 1960.  

Seriously, you guys can't back your stuff up. Dahobbs, you appear to know very little about this subject.

You said we didnt start affecting the temperature until the 1950s. The truth is that we didnt become the dominant influence on the planet's climate until that time. Other natural mechanisms contribute to both warming and cooling. In the early 20th century natural mechanisms contributed to the warming seem in that period (e.g., less volcanic activity and changes in the suns cycle). Humans also contributed, mainly via co2. Each of them contributed about the same amount, roughly .1 to .15 degrees (celcius), to the observed warming in the early 20th century (which is what your chart is showing). However, since the 1950s, all warming that has occurred has been due to human activity. 

And, again, you cant just look at periods of increase in evaluating our effect on the climate. Even in periods of cooling, human activity caused that cooling to be shallower and shorter than it otherwise would have been.

[Dahobbs 18345]

5 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/

So, did you actually read the link you sent? Because, it explains how both your screenshot is genuine and how pretty much everything predicted has to come to pass. 

Notice, your screen shot doesnt say "the world will end on 2000," it says that we had until 2000 stop it from happening at all. We missed that deadline, so damaging global warming will/is occurring. The discussion now is about limiting the damage, not preventing it entirely. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dahobbs

[zork 629]

I did read it.  No need for cataclysmic discussion when the facts can say it for you.  How many entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth since 1989?

[hpslugga 4097]

18 hours ago, zork said:

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

You’re confused. He’s doing neither of those things

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

You’re confused. He’s doing neither of those things

He certainly cares about it given his thousands of posts on the topic, certainly many hundreds, over the years(on multiple LH sites).  He helps keep the topic TTT for certain as well.  Whether you, anyone, agrees is up for debate but I certainly appreciate hearing/reading what he brings to the discussion and the back and forth that results.  But I'm imperfect and want to learn about many discussion topics on the CR and elsewhere.