2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

15 fucking years of this same circular discussion. It's like dealing with someone who really really needs rehab. They're never going to learn another way until they are receptive to another way. I just can't do this anymore, so I'm going to AL-AGAW. 

You know you are under no obligation to feed them, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but he does know personally that the right approach and information to conservatives can work. It worked on him, it worked on Turtle. And it’s to Biguns credit that he figured that others had open minds too. 
However, neither of them were as invested in this, they were more interested in actual data. 
It’s like the religious zealot who sees their own church, and everyone else is a heretic or pagan. 
Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The deniers come from all walks of life; young or old, rich or poor, man or woman. Deniers are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children or grandparents, whose denial causes pain and fear for all who love them. 

 

I would suggest that it is you guys who are in denial.

You deny there are more polar bears, you deny food production is at an all time high, you deny deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, you deny the climate models run much hotter than observation, you deny the “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, you deny deserts are shrinking not growing, you deny green vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, you deny arable land has increased not decreased.

All of these actual OBSERVATIONS, run counter the the CAGW narrative.

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”

Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Your reputation here has been so busted that hanging it on the IPCC coattails won't do a thing to save it.

In this post, we have:

Summary: brenthutch is full of shit as usual, now he's desperate enough to cherry pick and misquote the IPCC to make his points. You know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC.

 

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

Do you even understand the stuff you're quoting?

I doubt you do. Stop pretending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Anyway, to clarify for the other readers here, I can translate the blurb (brenthutch hasn't provided the exact reference).

Terms:

  • GCMs: Global Climate Models
  • SMB: surface mass balance
  • SRES: Special Report on Emissions Scenario
    • A1B: scenario where the world continues to adopt renewables at a moderate pace
    • A1FI: scenario where the world keeps using and doubles down on fossil fuels (the approach brenthutch is recommending)

So in this computer MODEL (not measurements as brenthutch thinks), modelling global emissions under scenario A1B results in Antarctica accumulating ice due to increased snowfall from increased moisture in the air.

However, this ice accumulation is almost entirely negated, but not quite, by increased ice discharge, so the net contribution is only about -0.8m in about 980 years (year 3000).

But the other sources of sea level increase, such as thermal expansion of seawater, pretty much swamps out this almost-zero contribution (0.8 mm per year vs 3.0 mm per year), so overall sea levels will still rise.

But again, this is a prediction from a MODEL that brenthutch doesn't believe in, but he just posted the blurb without any comment because really, he doesn't have a clue what it's saying.

references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

 

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Do you even understand the stuff you're quoting?

I doubt you do. Stop pretending.

Which of the following do you wish to challenge?

 

more polar bears, food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Crickets?  That’s what I thought.:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brenthutch said:

Which of the following do you wish to challenge?

 

 

more polar bears, food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Crickets?  That’s what I thought.:x

I just did. You really didn't know what it was saying :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

more polar bears

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

You're just as bad as Zoe - she uses bad computer code to try to impress people, you use IPCC quotes you don't understand to try to hang on their coattails.

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

vegetation has grown by 10%

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

You're just as bad as Zoe - she uses bad computer code to try to impress people, you use IPCC quotes you don't understand to try to hang on their coattails.

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Who said anything about polar bears in Antarctica?  You will just have to take that up with Zoe.

Try focusing.  I gave you an entire menu to choose from, let’s try again.

more polar bears(in the arctic of course) food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Take your pick.  It should be easy for a genius like you to take on a dolt like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Take your pick.  It should be easy for a genius like you to take on a dolt like me.

So do you now agree with the SRES computer model?

And, do you now support renewables since it's a big part of scenario A1B you just posted about?

Again note that what you posted was a prediction from a computer model, not actual historical data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So do you now agree with the SRES computer model?

And, do you now support renewables since it's a big part of scenario A1B you just posted about?

Again note that what you posted was a prediction from a computer model, not actual historical data.

Just an illustration that the “settled science” is far from settled.  Everything from my list is based on actual observations not conjecture.  With which one/s do you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

He meant all the penguins at the North Pole.

Quote

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Give her a few weeks; she'll be claiming that greening doesn't matter, so your quibble that the amount of greening is in fact 0% is irrelevant.  What REALLY matters is that it's cold outside right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

Quite possibly, he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

You can only be who you are?

Remember the second law of physics? Brent can only be Brent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Quack, quack, quack, if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck. It was a duck!

Do you honestly think people would get frustrated with strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.

Substance? really. Substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Quack, quack, quack, if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck. It was a duck!

Do you honestly think people would get frustrated with strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.

Substance? really. Substance.

I have given several examples of real world observations that contradict the CAGW narrative.  Instead of engaging in a substantive manner, all I get is obfuscation and insults.  
I guess if that is all you have then......that is all you have.:`|

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Just an illustration that the “settled science” is far from settled.  Everything from my list is based on actual observations not conjecture.  With which one/s do you disagree?

I asked a simple question. A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

Actually, since you posted that quote without comment, I'll assume that your answer was "yes you agree with the SRES model, and yes we should adopt renewables to aim for scenario A1B".

Thank you for conceding you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I have given several examples of real world observations that contradict the CAGW narrative.  Instead of engaging in a substantive manner, all I get is obfuscation and insults.  
I guess if that is all you have then......that is all you have.:`|

Nope, you gave a quotation from IPCC which was from a computer model about predictions on ice accumulation in Antarctica.

When I analysed that statement, you're now running away from it because you had no idea what it was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:


I guess if that is all you have then......that is all you have.:`|

After 50 posts more or less in your multiple climate denial threads. Yeah, I can't find the exit from the rabbit hole so thats all I got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

all I get is obfuscation

You're the one with all the obfuscation, you tried obfuscating with an IPCC quotation which you didn't understand, when I translated it for everyone here you just go back to "more polar bears".

Exactly like Zoe. She was initially obfuscating with "outgoing longwave radiation statistics look at my code" then she descended to "cold warms hot" when examined critically.

You think you can impress people here with IPCC quotes? Sorry brent, we actually know things here. Con artist techniques aren't going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You're the one with all the obfuscation, you tried obfuscating with an IPCC quotation which you didn't understand, when I translated it for everyone here you just go back to "more polar bears".

Exactly like Zoe. She was initially obfuscating with "outgoing longwave radiation statistics look at my code" then she descended to "cold warms hot" when examined critically.

You think you can impress people here with IPCC quotes? Sorry brent, we actually know things here. Con artist techniques aren't going to work.

Obviously you are not genius I thought you were.   Let’s try one more time or are you going to run away with your tail tucked between your legs?  Not some other person, not a link illustrating the “science” is far from settled, but the list of observations that contradict the CAGW narrative. One more time....

I say there are more polar bears, food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

As Steven Crowder would say.....change my mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2