Green new deal equals magical thinking

[ScottishJohn 25]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

March 20, 2000

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Who's the denier now?

I think David Viner was talking about the UK and not Global snow fall ALSO there is a difference to what was reported to what he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/steve-connor-dont-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

Quite often media headlines do not always accurately report the facts but are written to sensatianalise and draw the reader in and if these false headline are repeated often enough then people accept it as truth.  

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

March 20, 2000

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Who's the denier now?

The guy quoting the one person who got a detail wrong, meaning you.

Here's a pdf of the article you're referring to in which Viner makes that statement:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

Here's another describing that he's right about snow becoming less prevalent:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/often-does-snow-fall-uk-getting-rarer/

And the data:

https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/

And another about how it's different in different areas because of regional geography:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43158532

B-Hutch, you act like you're an independent thinking guy but you're pedaling the same BS as the rest of the conspiracy right-wingers.  At least show your sources.  Also, still waiting on that elephant in the room answer, where is the analysis of the data that debunks the global body of independent research?

Edited April 30, 2019 by DJL

[kallend 1,621]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

March 20, 2000

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Who's the denier now?

Are you familiar with the climate of East Anglia?  I am, I lived there for 13 years.  

Seems to me that you post nonsense from a position of ignorance, hoping no-one will know better.

[brenthutch 383]

Why does an article from 2018 not use any data after 2010?

Also, you keep talking about the "elephant in the room" and "global body of independent research", just what EXACTLY are you referring to?

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, kallend said:

Are you familiar with the climate of East Anglia?  I am, I lived there for 13 years.  

Seems to me that you post nonsense from a position of ignorance, hoping no-one will know better.

I quote, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Why does an article from 2018 not use any data after 2010?

Also, you keep talking about the "elephant in the room" and "global body of independent research", just what EXACTLY are you referring to?

Because it's the 2010 to 2018 data you think is hiding the dark secret?

The elephant in the room:  You keep saying that this is all nonsense but you can't provide any data or analysis of existing data showing otherwise.  All you can say is "No it's not" or point out some detail that wasn't perfectly predicted.  This isn't a tiny debatable detail, it's a gigantic highly studied issue.  So where is the gigantic highly studied data that supports your counterpoint?  From energy giants to the Heritage Foundation there is a ton of money being thrown into contradicting the global scientific body so where is their data and where are their results?

[kallend 1,621]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I quote, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

 

Exactly,  and snow in Chicago about which you were gloating, is NOT snow seen by children in East Anglia, to which he was referring.

Edited April 30, 2019 by kallend

[brenthutch 383]

41 minutes ago, kallend said:

Exactly,  and snow in Chicago about which you were gloating, is NOT snow seen by children in East Anglia, to which he was referring.

Since you are being pedantic,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/18/uk-gales-fell-trees-and-disrupt-travel

 

[DJL 232]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Since you are being pedantic,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/18/uk-gales-fell-trees-and-disrupt-travel

 

Are we still talking about snow?  Your source (correct link here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/18/uk-gales-fell-trees-and-disrupt-travel)  appears to show remarkably little snow in the video and pictures associated with the article.

To be fair, it did describe snow fall in various parts affected by the storm.  So, how about average snowfall in the UK?

Also, to point it out, Kallend is asking why you're using weather in the UK to prove something about weather in Chicago.  And also, have we covered the difference between weather and climate?

Edited April 30, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

 

The elephant in the room:  You keep saying that this is all nonsense but you can't provide any data or analysis of existing data showing otherwise.  All you can say is "No it's not" or point out some detail that wasn't perfectly predicted.  This isn't a tiny debatable detail, it's a gigantic highly studied issue.  

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PrZTWHCA5L4

trigger warning at 8:50

[DJL 232]

17 minutes ago, DJL said:

Since you are being pedantic

So to summarize this, you're accusing everyone of believing the hype BUT YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!!!   You're on the bandwagon with this article you found that's going viral in the denier world and you can't even digest it accurately.  The guy said in a partial quote that snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "We're really going to get caught out.  Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."  So what's your point?  Nobody said there wouldn't be snow or snow storms, they said that they would be less frequent and they will probably cause chaos.  Didn't you just post an article in which a snowstorm caused chaos?   ....

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PrZTWHCA5L4

trigger warning at 8:50

Must have missed it.  What are you talking about?

Edit: Also, sorry to say but you're still only posting one source, and a source that has been thoroughly exposed as a fraudster. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

Where he said Obama was wrong 

[DJL 232]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Where he said Obama was wrong 

Here's what he's quoting from Obama's State of the Union Address.  Tell me what's wrong:

"Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels.  Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.  Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record.  Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland.  Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s. "

 

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

Here's what he's quoting from Obama's State of the Union Address.  Tell me what's wrong:

"Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels.  Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.  Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record.  Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland.  Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s. "

 

Your conflating climate with weather. 

Anyway, you are asking me to prove a negative which can be problematic. 

I think we are talking past one another.  I am citing ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS  (the planet has been COOLING for the past three years and the US is experiencing a COLDER than average start to the year) while you parrot warmists THEORY and taking points.  

[DJL 232]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Your conflating climate with weather. 

Anyway, you are asking me to prove a negative which can be problematic. 

I think we are talking past one another.  I am citing ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS  (the planet has been COOLING for the past three years and the US is experiencing a COLDER than average start to the year) while you parrot warmists THEORY and taking points.  

No.  What he's saying is that climate change makes weather events more severe.  That's not conflating.  Conflating would be saying that one or even a series of storms is proof for or against the effects of climate change, which is what you're doing with your snowstorms in Chicago or the UK statments.

It's not negative that I'm asking you to prove because it's not something for which it's impossible to gather data.  "Your side" people AND the entire global scientific community IS ACTUALLY collecting that data and it all says the same thing.  What you're unable to show is data that refutes it.  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist because there's no way to know, it mean it doesn't exist because that's not what the data proves.  Huge difference.

You're accusing me of parroting talking points when you just spent the morning defending the denier world's fad story of the week.  Give me a break.  Let's recap again, you've been fed this article from the year 2000 that said snow is decreasing in the UK with a fairly sensational headline that "Snow will be a thing of the past".  The gotcha quote from Viner  doesn't even support that headline because he says snow will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "We're really going to get caught out.  Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."   Now, if you wouldn't mind, can you provide your source that the globe has been cooling for the last three years?

Edit: Let me guess, you're going to compare it to the 2015-2017 period in which we saw consecutive historically warm years.   Again, to avoid conflating weather and climate those three years aren't necessarily proof of global warming.  However, they are indicators that the effects of global warming added to the effects of warmer El Nino years.

Edited April 30, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

From the NOAA website:

2016 .95C above twentieth century average

2017 .85 above

2018 .79 above 

 

[billvon 2,380]

52 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I think we are talking past one another.  I am citing ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS  (the planet has been COOLING for the past three years and the US is experiencing a COLDER than average start to the year) while you parrot warmists THEORY and taking points.  

Actual observations show that the planet has been warming since 1900.  Not every single year, of course.  There was a 7 year plateau between 1998 and 2005.  Heck, there was a 35 year plateau between 1945 and 1980.  But the average has been steadily higher, as the climate models predicted.

A while back I joked that RushMC would soon be changing the title of his thread "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"  to "2005!  No, 2010!  Actually 2014!  Really 2016!"  Funny to see someone actually do that.

[turtlespeed 212]

The planet is getting warmer - It has been getting warmer for the last many thousands of years.

Did humans have anything to do with it - More than likely. It is not proven, but most reasonable people agree that it would be impossible not to have an effect, as much chemical change on the planet that humans have made.

 Is it going to be as bad as the alarmists say? So far, no.  

Is it even likely that the alarmists are remotely correct - Well, no. Absolutely not.  Not their most extreme predictions.

Neither is it that we are in cataclysmic danger - DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

An ant on a beach in South Florida experiences a rouge wave coming ashore - That's pretty cataclysmic.

A little extra rain in South Chicago area of the US - not so cataclysmic.

A lot more respect will be gained IF we could, (but won't, because - well - drama and feels) stop exaggerating the consequences.

 

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The planet is getting warmer - It has been getting warmer for the last many thousands of years.

Did humans have anything to do with it - More than likely. It is not proven, but most reasonable people agree that it would be impossible not to have an effect, as much chemical change on the planet that humans have made.

 Is it going to be as bad as the alarmists say? So far, no.  

Is it even likely that the alarmists are remotely correct - Well, no. Absolutely not.  Not their most extreme predictions.

Neither is it that we are in cataclysmic danger - DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

An ant on a beach in South Florida experiences a rouge wave coming ashore - That's pretty cataclysmic.

A little extra rain in South Chicago area of the US - not so cataclysmic.

A lot more respect will be gained IF we could, (but won't, because - well - drama and feels) stop exaggerating the consequences.

 

 

Largely all true. To me personally the exact consequences are unknown. What I do believe, personally, is that the people saying there is a potential "tipping point" are probably correct. But no one knows for certain where it is or even what it will bring. The objective facts I see are higher CO2 levels, measurably higher sea levels, and measurably high ocean temperatures. The average air temp, which keeps getting thrown around here, matters very little compared to ocean temps. The oceans drive the climate.

The main point is that we are changing the climate by our actions with unknown results. It would be wise (collective societal long term wisdom is not demonstrated to be a human trait) to avoid having to find out what the results may be. We are coming into a time when technology may enable us to avoid finding out. We should do so. If we continue to burn hydrocarbons at an increasing rate like we have been it is clear that will have a much larger effect. There will be winners and losers as we adapt. But, in the end we are land creatures. Clearly there will be less land. How productive the average acre of land will be is not known.

None of this is alarmist. It is very conservative. But not in the context of the US Republican party. Which is no longer conservative, it is nationalistic and reactionary. And alarmist.

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

 the planet has been warming since 1900.  Not every single year, of course.  There was a 7 year plateau between 1998 and 2005.  

The planet has been warming since 8000BC.  

The failure of the models to predict “The Pause” demonstrates their inadequacy 

[billvon 2,380]

22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The planet is getting warmer - It has been getting warmer for the last many thousands of years.

Did humans have anything to do with it - More than likely. It is not proven, but most reasonable people agree that it would be impossible not to have an effect, as much chemical change on the planet that humans have made.

 Is it going to be as bad as the alarmists say? So far, no.  

Is it even likely that the alarmists are remotely correct - Well, no. Absolutely not.  Not their most extreme predictions.

Neither is it that we are in cataclysmic danger - DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

An ant on a beach in South Florida experiences a rouge wave coming ashore - That's pretty cataclysmic.

A little extra rain in South Chicago area of the US - not so cataclysmic.

Agreed.  Which is why it is wise to go with organizations like the AAAS and the IPCC rather than Greenpeace (or the Heartland Institute.)

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, brenthutch said:

The failure of the models to predict “The Pause” demonstrates their inadequacy 

It is demonstrated that there is a direct cause and effect linkage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures on Earth. Your arguments against that basic fact are inadequate.

[billvon 2,380]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The planet has been warming since 8000BC.  

The failure of the models to predict “The Pause” demonstrates their inadequacy 

None of the models claim to predict pauses (i.e. weather.)  They predict climate averages over decades.  And they've been remarkably accurate so far.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Neither is it that we are in cataclysmic danger - DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

I think a good benchmark of the dangers  of climate change is that the US Navy has a strategy in place for its effects.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/october/war-plan-orange-climate-change