Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
@boomzilla said:
Can you point to the scientific paper that made a good prediction about future temperatures?
It doesn't matter; the predictions don't even agree with each other, so at least one is bound to be correct sooner or later.
Maybe. But the "mainstream" stuff whose consensus I'm supposed to fall in line with has incorrect predictions. They even try to weasel their way out by calling them scenarios or something. None of the trolls can point to successful predictions because there haven't been any. So they have to talk about a made up consensus.
-
It's a moot point, since global warming is not going to doom us all in "3 years" or whatever hyperbolic nonsense is posted above.
I'll be glad to see how it turns out in 85 years... I'm feeling pretty confident in higher average global yearly temperatures.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html
By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 4°F to 11°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.
So now to sit back and wait.
i dont guess there's any predictions of doom in there, but then again I HAVENT PREDICTED DOOM, in case you cant read.
I have said later in this that some scientists predict doom and that it'd be better to take it seriously than to dismiss it for political reasons and strawmen.
But I don't really predict doom in the near term. Maybe 100+ years in the worst case that we dont bother even trying to stop rising temps, but not in my lifetime.
-
When "scientific consensus" is referred to in relation to climate change, it's referring to the following points:
The earth is getting warmer
The warming is mostly due to human activity
If greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue, the warming will accelerate97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
Figure 1. Response distribution to the question,
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?" (Source)significant : >= 20%?
mostly : >= 50%10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world
listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's
Directory of Geoscience Departments. The 2-minute, two-question poll had
3146 responsesLater contacted the remaining 7000 experts, and they said they didn't want to have their opinion misconstrued.
Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change.
-
i dont guess there's any predictions of doom in there, but then again I HAVENT PREDICTED DOOM, in case you cant read.
That doesn't even attempt to answer my question. I was talking about a prediction made in the past that we could compare to actual results. Sorry that I wasn't clearer. No one is arguing that people aren't predicting that temperatures will go up in the future.
I'm talking about determining if those predictions are worth anything. So far, signs point to no.
-
... pretty sure that gov article had predicted temps for what are now past dates. and you posted some images of various predictions. but again, it takes many many years to determine a TREND. one single year matching or not doesnt mean shit. we havent made it nearly long enough since half of the prediction models started to evaluate whether theyre close or not. And some have already been thrown out as too aggressive.
oh goddamnit, i've already said this exact same fucking thing.
-
... pretty sure that gov article had predicted temps for what are now past dates.
Ah, OK. Yes, they cite the thing from the IPCC. Which uses the climate models' predictions. Which are wandering out of their 95% confidence interval or whatever they're calling it.
but again, it takes many many years to determine a TREND. one single year matching or not doesnt mean shit.
Yes. I'm not comparing a single year. I'm comparing the predictions to reality. The gap keeps getting wider.
we havent made it nearly long enough since half of the prediction models started to evaluate whether theyre close or not.
Not true. According to the guys who made the models, we've already seen stuff that we shouldn't have (i.e., too long of a hiatus in warming). I'm sure they'd love to accept the
you're making here, but in this case, I'm judging them based on what they said about their model output compared to reality and AGW.oh goddamnit, i've already said this exact same fucking thing.
Yes. You were wrong then too. I suspect you'll say something similar in the future, too, because you haven't figured out why you're wrong yet.
-
They said they'd know if the trend matched by now, 15 years ago.
Oh wait, it's cooling.
Nope, we fudged the new numbers wrong.
Trust us, we'll know in another 5 years. Then we'll have a more accurate set of 15 years.
I'm not shitting this either. It was literally 15 and 5 years. Gah, I wish I had that link.
-
yep thats exactly what they said.
oh, no, it's what youre pretending everyine said in order to make yourself look like some sort of authority on the subject.I still havent seen this "cooling" graph, other than thr ones where you pick out only colder temps to support your theory, like the one you posted this morning that didnt mean shit and reignited this whole thing.
-
Climate Change 2015: Here’s What NASA Found After 12 Years Of Studying Global Warming From Space [VIDEO]
![Climate Change 2015: Here’s What NASA Found After 12 Years Of Studying Global Warming From Space [VIDEO]](https://d.ibtimes.com/en/full/1883532/earth.jpg)
Over the past 12 years, water vapor actually doubled carbon dioxide’s influence on climate change.
Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us
A period of extreme heat is likely upon us.
When they looked at a subset of models that matched well to temperature trends in the Pacific Ocean, they found that a natural 5-year-long hiatus could occur up to 30% of the time. There was about a 10% chance of a 10-year-long warming pause. And at 20 years, the chances were about 1%. Roberts told Quartz that this all suggests our current warming pause is unique, but, despite the low probability, it is also “very possible” that the pause could continue a few more years. And that wouldn’t be inconsistent with what we know about the effects of the heat-trapping ocean oscillations at work in the Science study.
So either we are warming and NASA used that data to determine warming means more warming.
Or we are cooling and these cooling gaps are unique.
Once again, everything is AGW. Even not having AGW is AGW.
Oh look, more consensus
(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian
scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change. Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology
-
I still havent seen this "cooling" graph, other than thr ones where you pick out only colder temps to support your theory, like the one you posted this morning that didnt mean shit and reignited this whole thing.
Eh...I haven't been reading his posts closely enough to know what you're talking about, but I still haven't seen any sort of warming graph that would convince anyone that AGW is a problem.
-
http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/climate-change-2015-heres-what-nasa-found-after-12-years-studying-global-warming-1883547
Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us
A period of extreme heat is likely upon us.
When they looked at a subset of models that matched well to temperature trends in the Pacific Ocean, they found that a natural 5-year-long hiatus could occur up to 30% of the time. There was about a 10% chance of a 10-year-long warming pause. And at 20 years, the chances were about 1%. Roberts told Quartz that this all suggests our current warming pause is unique, but, despite the low probability, it is also “very possible” that the pause could continue a few more years. And that wouldn’t be inconsistent with what we know about the effects of the heat-trapping ocean oscillations at work in the Science study.
So either we are warming and NASA used that data to determine warming means more warming.
Or we are cooling and these cooling gaps are unique.
Once again, everything is AGW. Even not having AGW is AGW.
Oh look, more consensus
(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian
scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change. Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiologyGoddamn if your interpretation is stupid.
Basically theyre saying that statisticall a 10-20year pause does not disprove global warming BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LONG ENOUGH FUCKING TREND TO HAVE DEFINITE IMPLICATIONS ON LOG TERM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
Holy fuck man. That doesnt say it proves ANYTHING.
-
Basically theyre saying that statisticall a 10-20year pause does not disprove global warming BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LONG ENOUGH FUCKING TREND TO HAVE DEFINITE IMPLICATIONS ON LOG TERM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
Yeah, I know what they're fucking saying.
I'm also saying that we only have a good 15 years of warming data that has been calculated using the same method of gathering data, and not fudged into to match other data sets.
15 years of proven warming, 15 years of proven cooling, using the same method of temperature measurement.
Oh yeah, we have a trend.
-
http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/climate-change-2015-heres-what-nasa-found-after-12-years-studying-global-warming-1883547
Following that to the link to NASA:
Twelve years of satellite data help decode climate change - NASA Science
Now that NASA's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) has amassed 12 years of data, researchers are using its cutting-edge observations to better understand how climate feedbacks will impact warming rates.
In a recent study, Su and her research team used AIRS observations of humidity to analyze the performance of 15 leading global climate models. What they found was surprising: Only five of the models reproduced humidity levels that matched the current range observed by AIRS and other instruments. Even more startling, those models that did accurately forecast current humidity were the ones that predicted a much warmer future climate—about .7 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) higher than the average warming predicted by all 15 models combined.
“It’s kind of an ‘inconvenient truth’—the models that are realistic all happen to be the ones that are predicting a very strong warming in the future,” said Su.
So...some models have predicted humidity, but they're off in terms of temperature (they don't say this directly, but since we know the models have generally predicted too high, the highest ones must have had greater error in temperature predictions). The ones closer to reality in temperature are off in other ways. At least in part because:
While water vapor has a powerful effect on the climate system, the role that clouds play in affecting climate change is not well understood. “Models all predict that the water vapor effect doubles the amount of warming, but we’re still pretty uncertain about how clouds amplify warming,” said Hui Su, a research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
So...here we have NASA talking about how the models aren't doing a good job predicting. Of course, here's the spin they put on this:
According to Fetzer, Su’s findings beg two important questions: “First, why are we looking at models that don’t accurately produce what we’re experiencing today? And second, if the models that are accurately forecasting humidity say that future warming is going to be closer to 4 degrees C than 1.5 degrees C, shouldn’t we be concerned?”
Makin' Lemonade at NASA!
-
so global warming cant be true because we dont have enough data to undeniably prove the theory yet?
TDEMSYR.
-
so global warming cant be true because we dont have enough data to undeniably prove the theory yet?TDEMSYR.
No, I'm saying it's not falsifiable, and if this was any other field of science, they'd be saying, "we don't know".
-
if theres not enough reliable historical evidence to prove it in your eyes, there's also not enough to disprove it either.
-
Basically theyre saying that statisticall a 10-20year pause does not disprove global warming BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LONG ENOUGH FUCKING TREND TO HAVE DEFINITE IMPLICATIONS ON LOG TERM GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
Even a troll like you should admit that it doesn't look good for the models. "Not inconsistent with" are the ultimate scientific weasel words. They only trot that shit out when the news is bad. In short: you've been trolled by the climate scientists.
-
That's great.
Which goes back to, let's not make radical economic policies based on...
"Fuck, maybe?"
-
so global warming cant be true because we dont have enough data to undeniably prove the theory yet?
We don't have enough data to undeniably disprove Russel's teapot, either. Why are you so sure there's an orbiting teapot out there? Just what sort of nut are you?
-
if theres not enough reliable historical evidence to prove it in your eyes, there's also not enough to disprove it either.
Where do you suppose the burden of proof lies in this stuff?
-
And yet a fucking again, i dont recall suggesting any policies.
Basically youre sayingbyou dont believe in global warming because you dont want these policies. exactly like all the politicians i guess.
-
Basically youre sayingbyou dont believe in global warming because you dont want these policies.
No, that's what you're saying. Presumably because you heard it on MSNBC.
-
There's far too much political pressure trying to make AGW true.
Seriously, they say oil companies can't be right because of political pressure and lobby power, but then give the other side a pass even though every single nation is crossing its fingers grasping at the power to control their economies hoping that the sea rises 100 inches in the next few years.
Holy shit, when has anyone sat there saying, I hope a bunch of people fucking die so I'm right.
http://wssbd.com/fs/201503/a_How_many_people_should_be_killed_to_stop_global_warming_.html
According to the UN agenda 21 the world must be depopulated to 500 million to 1 billion so 6 billion people must die.
No, I don't care whether it's right or not.
What I care about is a bunch of idiots running off with it and making changes that will cause damage, based on a probability that damage is being caused.
And that there's a bunch of real pressure for global warming to be a disaster, and that we just have to take their word for it.
Because honestly, when I look at all of it. I say, "There's not enough data". I mean, exactly, there's just not enough data.
In 20-50 years, when they have enough data and show its true and show that these cooling cycles are not affecting the warming trend, rather than relying on fudged data collected from fucking pirates and merchants who drew sea monsters on their maps, and tree ring data that's been shown to be unreliable, then I'll say, hey it's right.
But I won't regret stopping Al Gore from profiting from FUD.
But, my god, it will be too late. The climate will be on a spiral course out of control and we'll all die.
Then we'd probably eventually die anyway, because that means the Earth doesn't have enough regulatory power to recover from a billion other fucking things that are way past due.
-
i'm done arguing about whether you politically believe in global warming. since you have no desire to actual put forth anythig remotely resembling a counterpoint other than bitching about politics and posting laughably cherrypicked charts and the occasional media article about one politcal party's FUD or the other, i am done wasting my time here.
-
i'm done arguing about whether you politically believe in global warming
What does "politically believe" mean here?
i am done wasting my time here.
-
for you i'll waste some time, your points are at least resembling some logic. @boomzilla said:
What does "politically believe" mean here?
Posting about how politics are trying to push AGW as an argument against AGW.Strawman time, for @boomzilla because he loves them...
Politicians are also pushing illegalizing abortions, maybe we should stop believing in that, right?
-
i'm done arguing about whether you politically believe in global warming
How can I believe in global warming?
The Earth gets warmer, it has gotten warmer before, it will get cooler and then get warmer again.
Oh, you mean AGW. We don't have enough data to prove that.
Let's not make our economic policies on a maybe.
End of my argument.
for you i'll waste some time, your points are at least resembling some logic.
My points are mostly the same as his. I just also tack onto the end.
"Let's not respond unreasonably".
-
why am i doing this...@xaade said:
Let's not make our economic policies on a maybe.
That's just it, youre so caught up with "not helping Al Gore" that it wouldnt matter what gets proven, you dont sound like you would believe anything that goes against that personal bias.@boomzilla might feel the same way, but he's not using it to justify an opinion about a scientific argument, because that's just piss poor logic.
-
Posting about how politics are trying to push AGW as an argument against AGW.
Well, I definitely think there's a lot of motivated thinking / confirmation bias by left leaning people with respect to AGW. And certainly right leaning people are interested in the opposite way. I don't see how @xaade is doing that here. He seems to be looking at stuff and just not seeing the justification for the things being proposed. If you already liked that stuff, your required justification is much less.
Strawman time, for @boomzilla because he loves them... Politicians are also pushing illegalizing abortions, maybe we should stop believing in that, right?
Interesting that you brought it up. Liberals are currently concern trolling with the latest Papal Encyclical regarding global warming. So should we take them up on this? I'll spring for some solar panels and we can stop killing babies?
That's just it, youre so caught up with "not helping Al Gore" that it wouldnt matter what gets proven, you dont sound like you would believe anything that goes against that personal bias.
You're so invested in him thinking this that you read it into everything he says. But I guess that's just how you troll.
-
That's just it, youre so caught up with "not helping Al Gore" that it wouldnt matter what gets proven, you dont sound like you would believe anything that goes against that personal bias.
Ok, let's take this slowly.
Global Warming is not happening.
Then why did we do all this shit? Our economy is hindered and a bunch of people lost their jobs for nothing.Global Warming is happening.
It doesn't matter, we reacted stupidly to it and made it that much harder for companies to adapt/respond to the change by inhibiting their ability to invest in newer technology.So it literally does not matter if global warming is true or not, IFF we keep behaving the same way politically. IPCC has no business recommending economic policy.
At the same time, I'm not convinced we have enough reliable data to make reliable predictions. And I'm also concerned that we'll make a great effort to combat global warming, and some cosmic force will change the balance in the opposite direction, or make it worse creating a scenario that we can't do anything about.
In other words, I'm much more concerned that we'll either break the economy, or yellowstone will explode and kill off North America, than I am about +5 degrees increase in temperature.
-
You're so invested in him thinking this that you read it into everything he says. But I guess that's just how you troll.
I didnt tell him to post about Al Gore multiple times in a scientific debate. I'm not sure how i'm supposed to take it when every other line is about how govt is screwing everyone over due to AGW.
Hell he's pretty much admitting it now, he doesnt know shit about AGW, he just doesnt want the govt to take action, therefore he must rail against AGW with whatever shit logic he can to prevent aforementioned govt action.
-
Hell he's pretty much admitting it now, he doesnt know shit about AGW, he just doesnt want the govt to take action, therefore he must rail against AGW with whatever shit logic he can to prevent aforementioned govt action.
Yes, that's how I would misread what he wrote if I were trying to troll him.
-
This whole thing would have been a lot simpler if instead if posting pseudoscience and strawmen in a poor attempt to disprove somethig he doesnt understand, he had just said "look, i dont think we should do anything about AGW right now, i'm not concerned about it."
THAT would have been a fine statement of opinion
-
he doesnt know shit about AGW
Not true. I've followed a ton of information about how they are collecting data, and I can't believe they can create a uniform picture out of it.
Buckets on merchant vessels.
Ice core drillings that show temperature going down.
Temperature readings at airports with city infrastructure moving towards them.
Tree rings that spontaneously change to environment and also show cooling when there isn't any.
Air balloon temperatures that don't span the entire timeline.
NASA straight up lying about where they've been collecting temperature.
-
I know about and believe in AGW, I still don't want the government to take action.
My general reaction to the Earth's temperature rising maybe 2 degrees in 50 years is, "fucking cope with it, you crybabies."
Call me crazy, but I grew up in a world with thousands of nuclear ICBMs were aimed at me at all times, and I don't think the whole AGW thing sounds like a world-ending threat worth worrying about.
-
And somehow not a single source that thinks there is some amount of consensus. Ie, you only read what matches your predetermined conclusion and ignore the rest.
-
I know about and believe in AGW, I still don't want the government to take action.
My general reaction to the Earth's temperature rising maybe 2 degrees in 50 years is, "fucking cope with it, you crybabies."
Don't post shit i agree with asshole, how can i make fun of it?
-
No, I've read it all.
Back when they thought clouds added to cooling and was a negative feedback, then flipped on that and said, nope clouds actually add to warming. everything is AGW....
-
Exactly.
I'm convinced we'll all either kill each other, yellowstone will blow up, or a random cosmic event will happen before climate change kills us off.
-
And somehow not a single source that thinks there is some amount of consensus.
Pretty sure he talked about what the actual consensus was earlier.
-
Alternatively, the Cubs will win the World Series.
-
Read it all and not a single bit of it was logically ok to you?
I guess every climate scientist out there is just lying or clealry worse in their field than you.You've posted mutiple anti-global warming conspiracy links in this thread, and for quite a few of them the explanation has already been debunked. But the debunking science doesnt agree with your opinion, so it must just be lies.
-
CO2 warms the planet.
CO2 generates feedback effects.
Feedback effects may or may not have an ultimate final net warming effect.Consensus.
We are causing warming.
Not sure if world is ending.
North Korea is a bigger threat.
-
CO2 warms the planet.
CO2 generates feedback effects.
Feedback effects may or may not have an ultimate final net warming effect.Consensus.
We are causing warming.
Not sure if world is ending.so... what are you arguing about again?
-
That the global trend proves we are in a spiral doomsday event and that we can't recover and we need to do something even more drastic than what we did to cause it.
That the Earth cannot experience a spontaneous recovery event.
-
I guess every climate scientist out there is just lying or clealry worse in their field than you.
Nah. There are a bunch who can read a chart and aren't in the bag for AGW.
But the debunking science doesnt agree with your opinion, so it must just be lies.
This is the only explanation I can come up with for people who are still on the AGW bandwagon.
-
That the global trend proves we are in a spiral doomsday event and that we can't recover and we need to do something even more drastic than what we did to cause it.
That the Earth cannot experience a spontaneous recovery event.
aaaaaand who exactly said that here on this forum?
you'e made up your own mythical person to argue against apparently.
-
-
But the debunking science doesnt agree with your opinion, so it must just be lies.
This is the only explanation I can come up with for people who are still on the anti-AGW bandwagon.
-
That's because you don't read my posts carefully enough.
