Global warming...

[Joes Place]

And yet again, you refuse to answer simple questions. I understand why, as does anybody reading the thread.

Wrong. I addressed two points in your 'link', which you've refused to admit, and instead are Gish Galloping on to something else.

Finish addressing the points YOU posted and we can move from them. This is lather.rinse.repeat with you; as soon as you get your ass handed to you, you vanish like a fart in the wind. Just like the last "biggest temperature drop ever seen" thread you bailed out of.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

So what? That is all.

Since you likely can't reproduce, this is probably appropriate for you.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Since you likely can't reproduce, this is probably appropriate for you.

That's even dumber than usual from you. Then again, you're a Gov Nut.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

That's even dumber than usual from you. Then again, you're a Gov Nut.

Given your lack of intellect, you have no idea what's dumb or not.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Given your lack of intellect, you have no idea what's dumb or not.

Yeah, good one. You're just not cut out for this buddy. Try a new hobby, like coloring or something to that order.

 

[The Tradition]

No I don't. We settled that in the ACA thread. Prime is inciting pollution. It's my duty as a citizen in a libertarian society to police Prime.

Be careful what you wish for. Big government may not be the worst thing after all. Millions of tiny governments may be far more troubling.

This word... settled.... I don't think that means what you think it means.

 

[Lone Clone]

Wrong. I addressed two points in your 'link', which you've refused to admit, and instead are Gish Galloping on to something else.

Finish addressing the points YOU posted and we can move from them. This is lather.rinse.repeat with you; as soon as you get your ass handed to you, you vanish like a fart in the wind. Just like the last "biggest temperature drop ever seen" thread you bailed out of.

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?

I do not recognize the phrase "Gish Galloping." Does it relate to the actress sisters, or what?

What points do you wish me to address from the linked piece? Are there inaccuracies in it? I don't doubt it for a minute. Are you willing to apply the same level of accuracy testing to the statements of AGW alarmists over the years that you apply to the piece I linked?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Yeah, good one. You're just not cut out for this buddy. Try a new hobby, like coloring or something to that order.

At least I can stay between the lines. But I'm sure with practice you can as well. Just keep at it.

 

[Joes Place]

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?

I do not recognize the phrase "Gish Galloping."

We know. Google it.

 

[Joes Place]

And yet again, you refuse to answer simple questions. I understand why, as does anybody reading the thread.

Incidentally, earlier you said Algore didn't predict the arctic ice could be gone; in fact, he said that several times, including in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

How many times do you need to hear that an offhanded comment is NOT the same as a scientific projection. "Could" is not the same as "expected outcome". We "could" be hit by a massive meteor; we "could" have a nuclear war that makes everything you've worked on for the past decade irrelevant. Speculation and "could" is not science.

And we went thru this MONTHS ago on the "2013 prediction"; it was from a Navy source, which claimed back in 2005 or 2007 that the Arctic may be ice-free in the summer by 2016±3 years. While 2013 is within those error bars, so is 2019. That was a prediction at odds with what any of the models projected. But there is a massive change in global sea ice coverage going on this year, which has scientists both worried and astonished at the drop from the 'norm'. That graph is posted, and you have yet to comment on it, either.

 

[KingClone]

I'm a skeptic of the concept of "settled science".

What I "know":
1. CO2 levels are rising because of human activity
2. CO2 in a controlled setting retains heat, acting as a "greenhouse gas". It can also act (in combination with Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorus, ...) as a growth stimulate for plants.
3. There are many forcing elements involved in climate prediction. Climate Scientists are working on models, but precision is elusive.
4. We are currently 12k years into the latest interglacial period. There has been extensive research into how long we can expect this climate norm to extend, yielding a wide array of predictions (including some which predicted its imminent demise)
5. I prefer a science community which rejects consensus and encourages dissent.

What I believe:
1. It is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue non-carbon based fuels for future use. But these fuels cannot ask societies to sacrifice utility; that is a non-starter.
2. It is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue methods of atmospheric carbon capture.
3. There is an unknown degree of uncertainty in current climate models (e.g. models account for the albedo effect of loss of arctic ice but are less precise regarding the albedo effect of clouds in an atmosphere which would presumably contain more warm air, water vapor and clouds)
4. There is risk associated with both under- and over-reacting.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?

I do not recognize the phrase "Gish Galloping." Does it relate to the actress sisters, or what?

What points do you wish me to address from the linked piece? Are there inaccuracies in it? I don't doubt it for a minute. Are you willing to apply the same level of accuracy testing to the statements of AGW alarmists over the years that you apply to the piece I linked?

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. This leaves some points unanswered and allows the original speaker to try and claim his opponent lacks the counter-arguments.

This is your article in a nutshell. The original claim of global cooling being a mainstream projection has been debunked. The ice-free Arctic by 2013 as a projection by any scientific model has been debunked. What you want is for someone to go through point by point and address each one. Why don't YOU address the two points already debunked first? That's how it should be done.

So...global cooling was NEVER a mainstream science projection. Scholarly articles projecting a warming climate outnumbered them 6-1 even in the late 60's/early 70's. What is your response?

There were outliers predicting much faster melting of Arctic ice but the IPCC - drawing on research from dozens of researchers worldwide - projected in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice free perhaps by 2030. That far more widely held view appears to be somewhat conservative as observed melting is running ahead of projections right now. What is your response?

 

[Joes Place]

5. I prefer a science community which accepts consensus and encourages skepticism.

Without 'consensus', there's no such thing as 'science'. Fundamentals of science are simply founded on 'consensus'.

There's not even such a thing as an established measurement system like the metric/SI system. We're back to measuring things in 'cubits' if we reject 'consensus' agreement.

Unsubstantiated dissent has no place in science; skepticism, founded in fact and observation, absolutely does.

 

[Lone Clone]

How many times do you need to hear that an offhanded comment is NOT the same as a scientific projection. "Could" is not the same as "expected outcome". We "could" be hit by a massive meteor; we "could" have a nuclear war that makes everything you've worked on for the past decade irrelevant. Speculation and "could" is not science.

And we went thru this MONTHS ago on the "2013 prediction"; it was from a Navy source, which claimed back in 2005 or 2007 that the Arctic may be ice-free in the summer by 2016±3 years. While 2013 is within those error bars, so is 2019. That was a prediction at odds with what any of the models projected. But there is a massive change in global sea ice coverage going on this year, which has scientists both worried and astonished at the drop from the 'norm'. That graph is posted, and you have yet to comment on it, either.

Joe, let's back off for a second and redefine what we're talking about, and where we stand on the issue.

For my part, I am not a "denier" -- a phrase intended to lump skeptics with those who deny the Holocaust. Rush Limbaugh is a denier (of AGW, not the Holocaust). I believe the climate is changing and I believe human activity may have something to do with it. I am skeptical of the more extreme claims and doomsday scenarios. This is not because I disagree with the research cited, which I am not qualified to assess. My skepticism stems from the fact that the proponents of the more extreme scenarios have a bad track record of warnings that have not come to pass.

Perhaps "prediction" is not the correct term to use for what Al Gore (for example) has said. But the point is that he warned on several occasions that polar ice could disappear in the very near future. That was the message he was sending, and he intended to send that message. The same is true for comments made by Hanson, the IPCC and others who are commonly cited as authoritative sources.

Logically, the intent of these comments is to convince people that catastrophic results of man-caused climate change are imminent, and thus drastic measures must be taken immediately. There is no other reason for them. You seem to be lumping them with statements about, for instance, how it's possible that a meteor capble of doing great damage could hit the Earth (again).

You compound the impression of a snake oil message when you refuse to concede the obvious truth: In many cases, the projections portrayed to the public as accurate have not been accurate.

If you want to argue that in the past the experts have been wrong, but now they are right, that's one thing. But to pretend they haven't been wrong is another matter altogether.

 

[Joes Place]

3. There are many forcing elements involved in climate prediction. Climate Scientists are working on models, but precision is elusive.

Not sure what you mean by 'precision'; there are certainly 'error bars' with projections, and virtually ALL of the observations are running ahead of schedule relative to those model projections:

Arctic sea ice losses; check.
Global temperatures; check.
Sea level rise; check.
Land ice/glacial losses; check.

When EVERY consensus projection is underestimating reality, it's definitely a reason for action over inaction. Not "dissent" that's based on cherry picked data points.

Furthermore, MANY of the natural forcings are actually LESS than historical numbers. Solar output is in a lull, but temperatures are rising faster. La Nina cycles have been predominant over the past 10+ years prior to this last El Nino, but temperatures are rising faster.

That is simply not a warm-fuzzy formula for what's likely to happen if we hit a decade of El Nino dominant cycles and solar output increases back to its typical mean levels.

 

[Joes Place]

Joe, let's back off for a second and redefine what we're talking about, and where we stand on the issue.

No; let's cut the Gish Gallop and address two of the points in your link which you've continued to sidestep. We've asked you several times now to admit they are BS. Or defend them with data.

 

[Joes Place]

You compound the impression of a snake oil message when you refuse to concede the obvious truth: In many cases, the projections portrayed to the public as accurate have not been accurate.

Bullshit. It's been posted on here at least a half dozen times, demonstrating that observations are EXCEEDING projections. Just as I've posted above. Nearly EVERY projection is running 'behind schedule' now. Including global temperatures.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question: when is Miami going to be uninhabitable?

 

[Joes Place]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question: when is Miami going to be uninhabitable?

Sometime after the year 2080.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

If you want to argue that in the past the experts have been wrong, but now they are right, that's one thing. But to pretend they haven't been wrong is another matter altogether.

So you ARE expecting perfection? Have individuals been wrong? No shit. Name any field of endeavor in the entire history of the human race where projections exactly matched outcomes.

But the consensus has been remarkably accurate given the information available to them at the time. You can't look at a thirty year old projection and simply pronounce it wrong because it doesn't exactly match an outcome. And you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT accuse someone of lying or even being misleading due to that.

 

[The Tradition]

Sometime after the year 2080.

Hmmm.... probably too early to purchase property in Sebring and profit from the mass exodus.

 

[Joes Place]

So you ARE expecting perfection? Have individuals been wrong? No shit. Name any field of endeavor in the entire history of the human race where projections exactly matched outcomes.

But the consensus has been remarkably accurate given the information available to them at the time. You can't look at a thirty year old projection and simply pronounce it wrong because it doesn't exactly match an outcome. And you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT accuse someone of lying or even being misleading due to that.

Which projection has been 'wrong'? From what I've seen, Hansen's 1980-era temperature projection has been pretty much spot on; and that was based on >30 year old models and information.

 

[KingClone]

Without 'consensus', there's no such thing as 'science'. Fundamentals of science are simply founded on 'consensus'.

There's not even such a thing as an established measurement system like the metric/SI system. We're back to measuring things in 'cubits' if we reject 'consensus' agreement.

Unsubstantiated dissent has no place in science; skepticism, founded in fact and observation, absolutely does.

I worded that point poorly, and absolutely agree with you.

What about my other discussion points?

 

[Lone Clone]

No; let's cut the Gish Gallop and address two of the points in your link which you've continued to sidestep. We've asked you several times now to admit they are BS. Or defend them with data.

What is Gish Gallop?
What two points do you want me to address?

 

[IACub]

Try a Mirror if you're looking for something, cubbie

likes

On the same coin, just because you see something on the internet doesn't make it true. Man made climate change is real, I can't change whether you believe it or not, and there's lots of fake news to back up your claims. Some people are smart enough to understand the science and be terrified for the future of our world. Some are not so smart.

 

[Lone Clone]

Here are some projectsions on just one aspect of the subject:

"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions. - National Geographic Dec. 12, 2007

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. - BBC Dec. 12, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008


“There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009


“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” - David Vaughan Glaciologist & IPCC scientist - Financial Times Magazine Aug 8, 2012

 

[HawktimusPrime]

At least I can stay between the lines. But I'm sure with practice you can as well. Just keep at it.

You only stay in the lines because the numbers on each section of the picture help to keep you there. You still mess that up even.

 

[IowaNiceHawk]

Wow, it was only 15 degrees in Iowa, today.........much colder w Windchill.

But just think-----how cold would it be without 'global warming'?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question: when is Miami going to be uninhabitable?

That's not what you need to be worrying about right now. The values of coastal properties in high flood prone areas have never recovered from the recession. Flood insurance premiums are rising.

Roy and Carol Baker, who now live in Sarasota, Fla., recalled trying for several months to sell their home in nearby Siesta Key in 2014. Interested buyers kept backing out of the purchase when they found out that the annual flood insurance premium was roughly $7,000, they said.

...

The National Flood Insurance Program is more than $20 billion in debt. After several major coastal storms, Congress tried to fix the program, passing a law in 2012 requiring that insurance premiums be recalculated to reflect risk.

Coastal homeowners rebelled, saying the legislation made insurance unaffordable, and in 2014, Congress repealed parts of the law.

...

Median home prices in areas at high risk for flooding are still 4.4 percent below what they were 10 years ago, while home prices in low-risk areas are up 29.7 percent over the same period...

It's only a matter of time before people will be unable to sell those properties to anyone and will simply walk away from mortgages that are figuratively...if not yet literally...under water. The amount of property at risk is larger than that covered by the sub-prime collapse. And it will never recover.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Trump has, after all, already promised to make a future Saudi America independent of oil imports from the actual Saudi Arabia or any other “foe” or member of the “oil cartel,” come -- if you’ll excuse a phrase that, in the context of climate change, is all too apt -- hell or high water.

-- Nomi Prins

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176219/tomgram:_nomi_prins,_the_march_of_the_billionaires/

 

[Joes Place]

Here are some projectsions on just one aspect of the subject:

"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007

Which "models"?
Because nearly ALL of the consensus models indicated an ice-free summer sometime around 2040 or later.

Again, random quotes you find on the internet are not 'models', and if we cannot formally attribute them to people who are actually qualified to make them (Al Gore being the prime example), we aren't really debating 'the models', we're arguing over one individual who was NOT speaking for the consensus.

Hell...we had one winger claiming 'the Iraq war would pay for itself' in oil revenues. Not many people believed him, and the Bush admin certainly wasn't regurgitating that whopper, either.

'Outlier' predictions are not the science consensus, which is what we've tried time and time again to get you to recognize.

 

[The Tradition]

That's not what you need to be worrying about right now. The values of coastal properties in high flood prone areas have never recovered from the recession. Flood insurance premiums are rising.

Roy and Carol Baker, who now live in Sarasota, Fla., recalled trying for several months to sell their home in nearby Siesta Key in 2014. Interested buyers kept backing out of the purchase when they found out that the annual flood insurance premium was roughly $7,000, they said.

...

The National Flood Insurance Program is more than $20 billion in debt. After several major coastal storms, Congress tried to fix the program, passing a law in 2012 requiring that insurance premiums be recalculated to reflect risk.

Coastal homeowners rebelled, saying the legislation made insurance unaffordable, and in 2014, Congress repealed parts of the law.

...

Median home prices in areas at high risk for flooding are still 4.4 percent below what they were 10 years ago, while home prices in low-risk areas are up 29.7 percent over the same period...

It's only a matter of time before people will be unable to sell those properties to anyone and will simply walk away from mortgages that are figuratively...if not yet literally...under water. The amount of property at risk is larger than that covered by the sub-prime collapse. And it will never recover.

LOL, let me know when the prices start dropping because no one can sell.

 

[Joes Place]

Here are some projectsions on just one aspect of the subject:

"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions. - National Geographic Dec. 12, 2007

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. - BBC Dec. 12, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008


“There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009


“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” - David Vaughan Glaciologist & IPCC scientist - Financial Times Magazine Aug 8, 2012

NONE of these are 'model projections'; they are media statements.

We've asked you for 'model projections', because that is what your link is referring to - science projections being wrong, not random media quotes being wrong.

Apparently, you're incapable of understanding the difference. Maybe that's the problem. And that's really your problem and inability, not the inability of scientists to produce accurate models.

 

[The Tradition]

NONE of these are 'model projections'; they are media statements.

We've asked you for 'model projections', because that is what your link is referring to - science projections being wrong, not random media quotes being wrong.

Apparently, you're incapable of understanding the difference. Maybe that's the problem. And that's really your problem and inability, not the inability of scientists to produce accurate models.

Then maybe you should direct your ire toward the sensationalist media that causes people to be skeptical of the real science because of all the fake news regarding the science.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL, let me know when the prices start dropping because no one can sell.

Ok...

Median home prices in areas at high risk for flooding are still 4.4 percent below what they were 10 years ago, while home prices in low-risk areas are up 29.7 percent over the same period...

There you go.

 

[The Tradition]

Ok...

LOL, not in Florida. Maybe crappy New Jersey.

 

[herk90]

There is some serious dumb in this country anymore. You morons should not be allowed to vote.

I could agree to not allow some to not vote if you agree that anyone that pays no income tax can't vote either. Deal?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[Joes Place]

Then maybe you should direct your ire toward the sensationalist media that causes people to be skeptical of the real science because of all the fake news regarding the science.

I've never defended the sensationalist media.

But the fact that you and others are incapable of discerning between 'media hype' and 'actual science' isn't something I can fix for you. You have to fix that for yourself.

 

[BioHawk]

And yet again, you refuse to answer simple questions. I understand why, as does anybody reading the thread.

Incidentally, earlier you said Algore didn't predict the arctic ice could be gone; in fact, he said that several times, including in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Yes, yes, I know Algore "doesn't count." But you need to decide whether you are going to ignore him, defend him, or admit that much of what he said wasn't true. Same thing with Hanson and the IPCC.

The next time someone makes a reasoned, scientific argument about climate change and global warming using Al Gore as their primary source will be the first time. The only time his name is ever brought up is by people like you, who can't seem to understand that Al Gore is not a scientist or ever was. Al Gore isn't the reason this keeps being an issue. It's every single respected scientific organization standing on the rooftops screaming that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with that is. Yet, you keep treating them like the drunk on the corner rather than the experts they are.