4 4
brenthutch

Meanwhile in the Arctic

Recommended Posts

On 12/29/2021 at 5:22 PM, Phil1111 said:
On 12/29/2021 at 2:51 PM, murps2000 said:

And doesn’t “stall” mean it’s likely to start again?

It stalled, spun down the rabbit hole and a bunch of otherwise smarter people went down the hole to find it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2021 at 9:32 AM, Phil1111 said:

I find the concept of blocking people somewhat repugnant and disrespectful. I've come to the conclusion however that you're right. On the internet anyone from a 12 year old  delinquent with a computer. To those with all of the best qualities of human behavior. Each can have the same say. Repetitive statements via posting of information so fundamentally, fatally flawed. As to lead you to believe that they are an uneducated 12 year old. Who takes comic relief from wasting your energy and time. Warrants blocking.

As such I've followed your actions.

Unfortunately, some posters are impervious to killfiles.

Share this post


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

I know it feels “truthy” to blame bad weather on the sins of Man, but the facts contradict.
 

From your post in your climate fails thread.
 

So which is it, climate or weather?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

I know it feels “truthy” to blame bad weather on the sins of Man, but the facts contradict.
 

From your post in your climate fails thread.
 

So which is it, climate or weather?

It’s weather, but so are the recent tornadoes, heat waves, droughts and floods.  No meteorological phenomenon are happening outside the range of natural variability.

Share this post


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

It’s weather, but so are the recent tornadoes, heat waves, droughts and floods.  No meteorological phenomenon are happening outside the range of natural variability.

So cold weather in Boston is not evidence for or against climate change, then. Got it. Glad we got that cleared up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, murps2000 said:

So cold weather in Boston is not evidence for or against climate change, then. Got it. Glad we got that cleared up.

Neither are tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and floods. (But that doesn’t keep climate alarmists from claiming otherwise)

Share this post


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

Neither are tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and floods. (But that doesn’t keep climate alarmists from claiming otherwise)

Their existence alone certainly isn’t. A rising average global temperature merely  equates to more energy in the system overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Their existence alone certainly isn’t. A rising average global temperature merely  equates to more energy in the system overall.

Agreed, however the dire predictions have failed to materialize. In some cases, the opposite of what was predicted has happened. (Shrinking deserts, record food production, fewer strong tornadoes, growing polar bear population)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, olofscience said:

If only there was a way to take temperatures all over the world, subtract them from a 30-year average temperature (say, 1951-1980) then average the differences, then plot it per year! Then we don't have to argue about a couple of weather events.

But that's impossible, because the troll can't handle numbers...

All good stuff.  I have a hard time equating a slight rise in temps with the current crop of "climate disasters" being spouted by the media.

Share this post


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

All good stuff.  I have a hard time equating a slight rise in temps with the current crop of "climate disasters" being spouted by the media.

You can ignore the rest of the media and just go straight to NASA or the NOAA's webpages.

But please ignore brent's "re-interpretation" of the NOAA's articles. They're readable enough and you don't need him to break it down for you.

Share this post


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

All good stuff.  I have a hard time equating a slight rise in temps with the current crop of "climate disasters" being spouted by the media.

Well, there's not much doubt that the droughts and fires are caused by that slight rise in temperatures.  I mean, get the temps in the far north a degree above freezing and the permafrost melts.   And then burns.  Which is happening in Russia right now.  Or get the temperature up two degrees (which is about where we are now) and exactly the same rainfall that gives you just enough water now is not enough, due to snows melting earlier and water evaporating from the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, there's not much doubt that the droughts and fires are caused by that slight rise in temperatures.  

Except that is not what is actually happening 

“On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.10 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.”

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

“The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

R.R.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, there's not much doubt that the droughts and fires are caused by that slight rise in temperatures.  

I dare say there is quite a bit of doubt.  Wildfires are a part of nature.  Droughts are a part of nature.  You'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to believe 2 degrees difference....

I don't want to get into a pissing match over this.  Your side has already won.  

Share this post


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

I dare say there is quite a bit of doubt.  Wildfires are a part of nature.  Droughts are a part of nature.  You'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to believe 2 degrees difference....

I don't want to get into a pissing match over this.  Your side has already won.  

They are a part of nature; as are, in fact, pandemics. But consider -- the tide is small, right? Yet its impact on some places is huge, simply because of the geography (think of tidal flats, or the Bay of Fundy). Same thing for a small change in temperature. And that's just the obvious.

The more insidious changes are the ones that you don't think about, because "they've always been there." Things like the Antarctic ice sheet. No, it's not all going to melt next year, or even by 2050. But in parts, once some of it starts to melt, some of the ice sheets will disappear -- the sheets on land, not the shelves that are already in the water. That's why all the worry about the Thwaites glacier.

Kind of like a glass of water -- once you start tipping it, once it reaches a certain point, it's going over unless you catch it, and even then some water is spilled. We don't have hold of this glass, and we're tipping it.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Your side has already won.

Can I repeat myself for the umpteenth time - it's not about "winning" because it pisses me off that it's even happening, and I wish you were right that there's nothing happening but all the evidence points to the contrary.

Share this post


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

I dare say there is quite a bit of doubt.  Wildfires are a part of nature.

In PERMAFROST?  Does the word itself give you a hint that fires in it are not ordinarily part of nature?

Quote

Your side has already won.  

With this, both "sides" will lose - however you choose those sides.

Share this post


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

So, Kallend posts information from Michael Mann and you challenge him with a blogger that won the, "Tallest Climate Tale of 2019" Award: https://www.netzerowatch.com/we-have-a-winner-tallest-climate-tale-of-2019/ 

Do you not understand that you're embarrassing yourself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the source link:

Quote

Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging

There's no way to check their calculations because they don't show it - but it already seems some data was left out.

It's also telling that their graphs start at 2015 now, because 2016 was such a hot year that it masks the warming trend. What happened to 1998?

Not that he would know how to answer these questions (barely knowing how to put two numbers together) so checking this source's calculations is wayyyy off his ability scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4