ADVERTISEMENT

Climate scientists baffled at La Nina's frequency and endurance. "The models predict more El Ninos"....

Global warming is real. Doomsday is not. Yes, we should reduce carbon emissions in the long-term. No, we’re not all going to die if we don’t immediately change everything we’re doing.
We’re not right away no, but other species who share this planet will blink out, coral reefs go which causes more extinction in the oceans , affecting the natural food chain for bigger fish and mammals such as whales , polar bears, etc. once the kickback loops start is starts a cascading effect that will be hard to stop .
The two biggest carbon scrubbers: the ocean and rain forest are under major attack. We’re crossing a threshold that we won’t be able to walk back on….it’s amazing there is so much debate over what people see happening around the planet .
 
Who cares!

I want to know more about these models that are making climate predictions!


Beautiful-Weather-Girls.jpg



yanet-garcia-1.jpg


yanet-garcia.jpg


WEATHERGIRL-STRIPS-ON-AIR-686133


maxresdefault.jpg



x1080

weather_forecast_willy.gif
 
With the planet and future of humanity on the line, wouldnt that be a good time to be pro-active? Should we feel any obligation to protect the planet for future generations?

You could use that argument for virtually anything.

Cost-benefit analysis is a lost art, apparently...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kelsers
Cost-benefit analysis is a lost art, apparently...
Agreed. We just put inflation on a stratorspheric trajectory and wrecked our own supply chains for everything including essential goods & services over a bad case of respiratory flu.

Humans have a tendency to overreact. The children’s tale of “Chicken Little” has not sunk in yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
Agreed. We just put inflation on a stratorspheric trajectory and wrecked our own supply chains for everything including essential goods & services over a bad case of respiratory flu.

Humans have a tendency to overreact. The children’s tale of “Chicken Little” has not sunk in yet.
.... and the alternative costs that you are ignoring?
 
Laugh all you want Trad, you're the moron who brought up cost benefit analysis...how can you do such an analysis on anything like this when the outcomes can never be known?

Perhaps if you ever took a Complexity Theory class, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass with respect to such scientific topics.
 
Laugh all you want Trad, you're the moron who brought up cost benefit analysis...how can you do such an analysis on anything like this when the outcomes can never be known?

Perhaps if you ever took a Complexity Theory class, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass with respect to such scientific topics.

This reply reminds me of the old days in the Locker Room! Legendary good times!
 
  • Love
Reactions: seminoleed
You could use that argument for virtually anything.

Cost-benefit analysis is a lost art, apparently...
So is understanding data and models, apparently.

Never mind that there are cost-benefit analyses favoring “greening” our energy. I don’t think you do much real investigative reading… on anything, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Here's the shocking truth.

Climate change is natural and has happened for eons.

Except what's happening now is not "natural".

We're geoengineering our climate. Something people think will be super-easy on Mars, but it's actually pretty hard to do. But releasing gigatonnes of CO2 over decades and decades does the job and it's amazingly difficult to reverse in a short timeframe.


But Trad's post seems to have served its purpose - muddy the waters on the basic fact we are messing our climate up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: State of Iowa
Scientists quoted in the story be like, "I don't want to say the models are wrong, but the models are wrong."

The models are imperfect.

However, they have accurately portrayed the warming we're seeing. And the can ONLY do that if they include the anthropogenic contributions. No "natural" forcing is capable of explaining what is observed.

Scientists also cannot correctly model "gravity". But we have a pretty good handle on how it works for most practical applications.
 
The models are imperfect.

However, they have accurately portrayed the warming we're seeing. And the can ONLY do that if they include the anthropogenic contributions. No "natural" forcing is capable of explaining what is observed.

Scientists also cannot correctly model "gravity". But we have a pretty good handle on how it works for most practical applications.
This is what’s truly sad about how @The Tradition is interpreting this, especially while he purports to understand cost-benefit analyses (which are also models). The models are predictive, but hardly with exact crystal-ball accuracy. Same with cost-benefit analyses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
So is understanding data and models, apparently.

Never mind that there are cost-benefit analyses favoring “greening” our energy. I don’t think you do much real investigative reading… on anything, really.
He does "investigative reading" on food and cooking and seems somewhat intelligent. Most anything else he sounds like a moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
We paid it anyway. Unhealthy people died sooner than expected. I Don think we need to quickly, but smartly, transition to nuclear energy.
Oh no….can’t use nuclear energy. Uh-uh. Even though it makes sense and will go a long way towards solving the problem, can’t do it. Because…..nuclear!

People would probably be more receptive to global warming talk if they didn’t see hypocrites like Al Gore jetting all over the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
Oh no….can’t use nuclear energy. Uh-uh. Even though it makes sense and will go a long way towards solving the problem, can’t do it. Because…..nuclear!

People would probably be more receptive to global warming talk if they didn’t see hypocrites like Al Gore jetting all over the world.
The Al Gore deflect. Always useful. Always ridiculously dumb, too.
 
Not really. I’m just making an observation. You have zero idea what my stance on global warming is.
So why bother with Al Gote? Whether anyone deems him a hypocrite or not is really immaterial to the issue, and those people easily distracted by “Al Gore” and how many miles he flies or the square footage of his home—they’re choosing childish emotion-dropping silliness.
 
ADVERTISEMENT