You can't predict what happens to a complex adaptive system once it's passed it's tipping point
The Stench of Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
You can't predict what happens to a complex adaptive system once it's passed it's tipping point
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,800
- 203,888
- 113
Probably to an extent that could be made an argument.
But more than anything, it's just a sign you are a moron.
Who's better at saving the few remaining unicorns before they become extinct?
In the 80’s in CA we couldn’t go outside and play during Stage 3 smog alerts. Where did those alerts go, cause my kids never had them. Was it fake news at the time or is the air quality significantly better now than it was then?
Iowa is the goldilocks of climate change, just right...
Iowa Capital Dispatch
All parts of Iowa — for the first time in more than four years — have sufficient soil moisture to not be considered “abnormally dry” by national climate experts, according to a U.S. Drought Monitor report released last week.
That dryness designation can indicate an area is on the cusp of drought conditions, under which affected areas can have negative impacts for agriculture and water supplies.
An example: After years of drought, a lake that supplies water for the city of Osceola had lost so much of its volume that the city considered recycling its wastewater. Significant rainfall in recent months has restored the lake to nearly its normal surface elevation, according to city data.
Drought developed in Iowa in July 2020 and persisted until May 2024, after the state had one of its wettest starts to a year on record. It marked a dramatic recovery since September, when the state was the driest it had been in a decade.
Last week, Iowa had rainfall that was below average, according to State Climatologist Justin Glisan. However, heavy rain fell along the eastern edge of the state where the last remaining pocket of abnormal dryness lay. A month ago, about 31 percent of the state was abnormally dry, according to Drought Monitor reports. The last time there was no drought or dryness was May 2020.
The federal Climate Prediction Center does not foresee drought reemerging in Iowa in the coming months. Iowa lies in the center of a multistate area that has no drought and little abnormal dryness. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last week that more than 90 percent of Iowa’s farm fields have adequate or surplus moisture for growing crops. Last year, only 57 percent of topsoil was rated the same way.
Iowa Capital Dispatch
All parts of Iowa — for the first time in more than four years — have sufficient soil moisture to not be considered “abnormally dry” by national climate experts, according to a U.S. Drought Monitor report released last week.
That dryness designation can indicate an area is on the cusp of drought conditions, under which affected areas can have negative impacts for agriculture and water supplies.
An example: After years of drought, a lake that supplies water for the city of Osceola had lost so much of its volume that the city considered recycling its wastewater. Significant rainfall in recent months has restored the lake to nearly its normal surface elevation, according to city data.
Drought developed in Iowa in July 2020 and persisted until May 2024, after the state had one of its wettest starts to a year on record. It marked a dramatic recovery since September, when the state was the driest it had been in a decade.
Last week, Iowa had rainfall that was below average, according to State Climatologist Justin Glisan. However, heavy rain fell along the eastern edge of the state where the last remaining pocket of abnormal dryness lay. A month ago, about 31 percent of the state was abnormally dry, according to Drought Monitor reports. The last time there was no drought or dryness was May 2020.
The federal Climate Prediction Center does not foresee drought reemerging in Iowa in the coming months. Iowa lies in the center of a multistate area that has no drought and little abnormal dryness. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last week that more than 90 percent of Iowa’s farm fields have adequate or surplus moisture for growing crops. Last year, only 57 percent of topsoil was rated the same way.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,800
- 203,888
- 113
I lived in Cali (Orange County) in the early 80’s and there were air alert days but there was no concept of climate change then. It was air pollution trapped by the mountains - period.
Various excellent successful efforts to clean up the air have made a huge difference.
It was a place of beauty and I’m glad the air is so much cleaner now.
You know - I think that the climate of Earth constantly changing is “normal” but we’re maybe not accustomed to seeing the effects of that change because we’re only here for a blink in time, compared to the billions of years the planet has been here.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,800
- 203,888
- 113
If only scientists had some way to research past climate data!
JFC that's a dumb sentence even by your admitedly lax standards Goldy 🤣
P.S. Anthropogenic means "human-caused"
How is climate change affecting fierce wind storms like Houston’s derecho?
Anthropogenic Warming Had a Crucial Role in Triggering the Historic and Destructive Mediterranean Derecho in Summer 2022
A record-breaking marine heatwave and anthropogenic climate change have substantially contributed to the development of an extremely anomalous and vigorous convective windstorm in August 2022 over the Mediterranean Sea.
11A.4 Diverse Impacts of Global Warming on Derechos in the United States | Earth & Environmental Systems Modeling
Derechos produce widespread straight-line damaging winds that threaten human lives and property. Understanding the impact of global warming on derechos is beneficial for infrastructure and emergency response planning. This study selects 11 derecho events between 2015 and 2022 in the contiguous...
climatemodeling.science.energy.gov
Definitely an extreme outlier among her profession, and being proven wrong on a daily basis.
Apparently what I said went over your head OR I could have worded it differently- which is possible. You know, like at a fourth grade level - similar to your column.If only scientists had some way to research past climate data!
JFC that's a dumb sentence even by your admitedly lax standards Goldy 🤣
P.S. Anthropogenic means "human-caused"
How is climate change affecting fierce wind storms like Houston’s derecho?
texasclimatenews.org
Anthropogenic Warming Had a Crucial Role in Triggering the Historic and Destructive Mediterranean Derecho in Summer 2022
A record-breaking marine heatwave and anthropogenic climate change have substantially contributed to the development of an extremely anomalous and vigorous convective windstorm in August 2022 over the Mediterranean Sea.journals.ametsoc.org
11A.4 Diverse Impacts of Global Warming on Derechos in the United States | Earth & Environmental Systems Modeling
Derechos produce widespread straight-line damaging winds that threaten human lives and property. Understanding the impact of global warming on derechos is beneficial for infrastructure and emergency response planning. This study selects 11 derecho events between 2015 and 2022 in the contiguous...
But thanks for your very kind and congenial words, YOU EFFING ASSHOLE.
I’ll be sure going forward to frame my remarks in such a way that it’s crystal clear what my point was.
Oh - and BTW - I am not a climate change denier.
Anyone that keeps using private jets as some gotcha tells me they know nothing about this topic
I watched 5 minutes. More than enough to know she's a dishonest denier.
So then I looked her up. Yep.
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
Honest question Reed - is this rate of change an entirely new phenomenon or has Earth gone through an era of rapid change before? TIA.
No, it's gone through it before, during the mass extinctions (e.g. KT event) or other lesser events such as the PETM which were also extinctions events just not to that level....but NONE of said events were due to the actions of any species, they were all natural events
Last edited:
Dr. Curry doesn't know what she's talking about...or she lies. It has to be one or the other.
One claim: "They use models that are tuned to the period of interest, which should disqualify them from be(sic) used in attribution study for the same period (circular reasoning, and all that). "
That's simply and flatly wrong. Climate models are in no way "tuned to the period of interest" which she said was the period from 1950 to 2010. That's nonsensical drivel and someone who claims to be a climate scientist would know that. The models used in in the CMIP5 ensemble (there are four separate models) show a range of warming from 0.35 to 1.29ºC. Which one was "tuned" Dr. Curry? She doesn't say. The IPCC used multiple runs under different scenarios and with different forcers to determine a "line of best fit" to arrive at a +0.8±0.45ºC warming consensus...which was spot-on. And continues to be spot-on.
Claim 2: "The attribution studies fail to account for the large multi-decadal (and longer) oscillations in the ocean, which have been estimated to account for 20% to 40% to 50% to 100% of the recent warming."
LOL...that's quite the range there, eh? There are exactly zero credible studies that have even suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends. The biggest problem with this claim is that studies actually show energy going INTO the oceans over the long term. That increase, btw, was predicted by multiple studies into the effects of anthropogenic atmospheric warming. Dr. Curry is wrong, again.
Claim 3: "The models fail to account for solar indirect effects that have been hypothesized to be important."
They have been hypothesized to be important. But they certainly don't bear on the warming that's occurred since mid-century because solar activity has trended downward over that time period. Dr. Curry should certainly know that - I suspect she does.
That's three strikes. There's more but it's obvious that Dr. Curry demonstrates either an unfamiliarity with the topic she supposedly specializes in or a willful disregard for the truth. Take your pick. Either way, she disqualifies herself with blatant misinformation. Bottom line, Dr. Curry wouldn't know "objective " if it bit her on the ass.
Last edited:
