3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 

You guys say that you're not being hyperbolic, yet in the very same thread, you link to an article with the word "SCARY" in it.

Too funny

That's an even lamer rebuttal to a scientific paper than your usual tripe.

Share this post


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

Yes climate change is so devastating that folks are fleeing New York for Florida and Texas.  Again your fears are imaginary.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make a valid point with this statement.  Would you like to compare that to areas in which people ARE being forced to leave coastal areas, areas in which the US Navy is ACTUALLY preparing for higher sea levels and areas where property value IS dropping because of increased flooding?

Share this post


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

You guys say that you're not being hyperbolic, yet in the very same thread, you link to an article with the word "SCARY" in it.

Too funny

How's this, from the same article:

"Ice melting six times faster"

What word would you use to describe that so we can advise our hyperbolic scientists?

Share this post


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

 

You guys say that you're not being hyperbolic, yet in the very same thread, you link to an article with the word "SCARY" in it.

Too funny

This is more of a continuation of my post from yesterday that your denier sources lack data, the elephant in the room.  From the above posted "scary" article.  Here are the three ways in which they not only measure ice thickness but are able to apply those methods to data previously collected to make assessments from decades ago.  Again, this is raw data as in it's math and your guys from the Heritage Foundation can look at this as easily as any scientist on the planet.  Yet they don't.  In fact what they DO post (Rush's 3-scientist panel video) is something I can disprove just by reaching back to the OSHA manual behind my desk about acceptable levels of CO2 to demonstrate that they have no idea what they're talking about.  Seriously man, be smarter than this bullshit they're shoveling at you and stand up for what your own brain is telling you.

Ice melting six times faster

Glaciologists use three methods to measure ice melting.

Firstly, satellites measure altitude with a laser: if a glacier melts, the satellite picks up its reduced height.

A second technique involves measuring variations in gravity, as ice loss can be detected through a decrease in gravitational pull. This method has been available since 2002 using NASA satellites.

Thirdly, scientists have developed so-called mass balance models, which compare mass accumulated (rain and snow) with mass lost (ice river discharges) to calculate what is left.

These models, confirmed with field measurements, have become very reliable since the 2000s, according to Rignot—boasting a five to seven percent margin of error, compared to 100 percent a few decades ago.

The research team used these models to "go back in time" and reconstruct Greenland's ice levels in the 1970s and 1980s.

The limited data available for this period—medium-quality satellite photos, aerial photos, ice cores and other observations—helped refine them.

"We added a little bit of history that did not exist," said Rignot.

The results: during the 1970s, Greenland accumulated 47 gigatonnes of ice per year, on average. Then, it lost an equivalent volume in the 1980s.

Share this post


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

I didn't rebut the paper, I rebutted the notion that your side doesn't peddle in hyperbole.

You are missing the point. There aren't really 2 valid sides, there is Science, and there is Fiction that is beholden to politics. You are living in the fictional realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

You are missing the point. There aren't really 2 valid sides, there is Science, and there is Fiction that is beholden to politics. You are living in the fictional realm.

There's a quote attributed to Issac Asimov:

 

Quote

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

I think it applies rather well in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 1:14 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

A foot or so of sea level rise will make some areas much, much more prone to flooding in storms (Bangladesh is a good example, they've lost tens of thousands in past hurricanes). 
If temps rise (and not by a whole lot) a lot of 'lower latitude' land that is currently arable will not be so. If you think the African famines of the 80 were bad, these will make them look like a picnic. 


But those are all 'shithole countries, so most Trump supporters could not care less if those people survive. I'd guess some of them would cheer on the death of those 'brown people'.

The sad truth is that if we think the racial issues surrounding immigration are bad now just think about when entire continents empty.  They will be poor, dark skinned and desperate.

Share this post


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

Yes and I’m pretty sure that the aforementioned elephant is PINK.

I'm sick of responding about this. Climate change denial is a political position tinged with conspiracy nonsense. Go ahead, have your fun. But I'm no longer playing along. You and yours may as well be flat Earther's or Christian fundamentalists. It's all the same to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are confusing guesses about the future with the facts of the present.  The U.N.’s climate scientists state the the islands of the Caribbean will undergo climate forced depopulation by 2015.  When I point out the population of the Caribbean is either stable or growing you call me names.  Same goes for floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wrong, it was actually by 2010

"In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prediction was increased desertification, the reality quite different:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

 

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Share this post


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

I'm sick of responding about this. Climate change denial is a political position tinged with conspiracy nonsense. Go ahead, have your fun. But I'm no longer playing along. You and yours may as well be flat Earther's or Christian fundamentalists. It's all the same to me.

I was looking for the ability to block a thread so as to not be tempted to open it to see the new posts, Repeating the 3842.536 posts prior. Which say the exact same thing.

Complete waste of effort trying to convince deniers of "insert current topic" anything logical these days.

Too many crazy blogs saying otherwise.

 

But, the annual population growth rate IS down significantly since the early 60's in the Caribbean Islands.

 

I'll tap out now, thanks.

Share this post


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

The prediction was increased desertification, the reality quite different:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

 

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

 

1) There's no such thing as climate change!

2) OK maybe there's climate change but we had nothing to do with it!

3) OK maybe we had something to do with it - but the changes will all be good!

RushMC has a new successor.

Meanwhile in the fact-based world, the Sahara and Gobi deserts are expanding rapidly.  (1300 and 3500 square miles a year respectively.) The vegetated land on Earth is greener - but there is less of it.

Share this post


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

I was wrong, it was actually by 2010

"In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas"

A link to that report be great. All the links I can find on denier sites that have this wording are dead....

Share this post


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

Meanwhile in the fact-based world, the Sahara and Gobi deserts are expanding rapidly.  (1300 and 3500 square miles a year respectively.) The vegetated land on Earth is greener - but there is less of it.

Wrong again 

"Updating trends in satellite-observed GPP enhancement, Winkler et al. (2019) cite a statistically significant 52% greening trend during 1981-2016, outpacing the observed changes in browning (12%) by more than a factor of 4."

Share this post


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

Wrong again 

"Updating trends in satellite-observed GPP enhancement, Winkler et al. (2019) cite a statistically significant 52% greening trend during 1981-2016, outpacing the observed changes in browning (12%) by more than a factor of 4."

Wrong as usual.

Seriously, read the ACTUAL paper rather than the denier site interpretation. I'll give you a clue because science clearly escapes you. Look at where the Winkler study focuses.

Share this post


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

Wrong again 

"Updating trends in satellite-observed GPP enhancement, Winkler et al. (2019) cite a statistically significant 52% greening trend during 1981-2016, outpacing the observed changes in browning (12%) by more than a factor of 4."

Again, "vegetated lands has shown significant greening."  Not all lands.  Vegetated lands.  It's right there in your quote that you yourself posted.

You would be better served by reading the original study than a denier site with a political agenda.

Share this post


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

Oh BTW, my five year prediction for the demise of Tesla, might have been three years to generous.

But that's like saying the De Havilland Comet proved that jetliners were a failure.  Let me know if you get that.  The Comet, like Tesla was the first major jetliner and it took a lot of money and exposed a lot of issues with new technology.  The other companies simply learned from their engineering mistakes and jetliners have been the standard for about 50 years now.  As for electric cars the top rated models are in the exact same price range as their ICE counterparts (yes with moderate tax credits) and are cheaper to operate.  Where do you think we'll be in 50 years if the only issue you can point out is who might win a fictional race across the US Southwest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3