NOAA confirms the pause continues

[olofscience 420]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Once you get past 400 blankets, adding more doesn’t make you warmer because the amount of heat they trap is insignificant. Sort of like CO2.

So the troll is making a prediction again like Vahrenholt. See how that aged:

My prediction:

• the troll will move the goalpost from 400ppm (to 450 maybe? how about 500?)
• the troll will revert to saying "yes it's warming, but it's good!"

It's hilarious to see how he's trying to salvage the ruins of his argument against an article dated December 18, 2020.

Edited November 16, 2021 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

Just one? 

Here’s a bunch

[billvon 2,391]

47 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's hilarious to see how he's trying to salvage the ruins of his argument against an article dated December 18, 2020.

A few more fun predictions by climate change deniers:

2013, Habibullo Abdussamatov  “Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998.”

2012, David Archibald:  “The total temperature shift will be 4.9° C for the major agricultural belt that stretches from New England to the Rockies straddling the US-Canadian border.”

Also Archibald: “Sea level has a few more mm of rise to the maximum of Solar Cycle 24 in 2013 and then will fall 40 mm to 2040 taking us back to levels of the early 1990s.”

2011, Nicola Scafetta  “The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2° C by 2100.”

[olofscience 420]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Here’s a bunch

So, which of those were predictions I made?

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So, which of those were predictions I made?

Oh sorry I forgot to include the one about EVs replacing internal combustion vehicles in four years 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So, which of those were predictions I made?

Pfft.

Which of those were legitimate predictions made by ANY scientist?
And which were random statements taken out of context by sensationalist media?

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Which of those were legitimate predictions made by ANY scientist?

The troll doesn't do legitimate predictions. It can't even read the actual papers, so it has to fall back on media interpretations of papers.

[olofscience 420]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Oh sorry I forgot to include the one about EVs replacing internal combustion vehicles in four years 

The troll must be scared, it hasn't answered the question, and is trying to deflect with an off-topic comment.

[kallend 1,622]

47 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The troll must be scared, it hasn't answered the question, and is trying to deflect with an off-topic comment.

The troll is well fed.

[billvon 2,391]

47 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The troll must be scared, it hasn't answered the question, and is trying to deflect with an off-topic comment.

If you want to have a conversation with Brent, please use his name or his username or something.  Referring to someone in the third person is a way to ensure that no useful communication happens.

Or, if you don't want to have a conversation with him (which is also perfectly OK) - don't.

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Referring to someone in the third person is a way to ensure that no useful communication happens.

I think dealing with brent ensures that no useful communication happens.

Edited November 16, 2021 by olofscience

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Once you get past 400 blankets, adding more doesn’t make you warmer because the amount of heat they trap is insignificant. Sort of like CO2.

 

Problem being that you then wrongfully conclude the blanket could never contribute to warming.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Pfft.

Which of those were legitimate predictions made by ANY scientist?
And which were random statements taken out of context by sensationalist media?

If the effect of CO2 on the climate system were limited to an esoteric discussion amongst some academics I wouldn’t give a toss.  However once it bleeds into politics and policy, it leads to problems.  We are on the verge of spending a half a trillion dollars on an endeavor which, even its proponents admit, will have no measurable impact on the climate.  What it WILL do is line the pockets of pockets of politicians and their cronies, while misallocating scarce resources.

The environmental industrial complex is the new military industrial complex.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The environmental industrial complex is the new military industrial complex.

And yet you applaud increased "defense" spending. Is killing more people with weapons more fun than trying to kill less people by mother nature?

[olofscience 420]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If the effect of CO2 on the climate system were limited to an esoteric discussion amongst some academics I wouldn’t give a toss.  However once it bleeds into politics and policy, it leads to problems.  We are on the verge of spending a half a trillion dollars on an endeavor which, even its proponents admit, will have no measurable impact on the climate.  What it WILL do is line the pockets of pockets of politicians and their cronies, while misallocating scarce resources.

The environmental industrial complex is the new military industrial complex.

Rather boring variation of "yes it's warming, but there's nothing we can do to stop it".  You have such a limited range of responses...you really have nothing new.

[brenthutch 383]

44 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet you applaud increased "defense" spending. Is killing more people with weapons more fun than trying to kill less people by mother nature?

When did I do that?  I had a front row seat when it came to wasteful military spending.  We could easily cut 10% and not compromise readiness one bit.

BTW the folks wanting to kill more people via Mother Nature are the ones saying India and Africa can’t modernize their economies like we did in the West.

[brenthutch 383]

https://peratonweather.com/blog/2021/11/16/1200-pm-tropical-cyclone-activity-below-normal-for-the-northern-hemisphere-in-2021us-tornado-season-also-below-normal-this-year-though-there-were-outbreaks-in-unusual-places
 

More good news.  Mother Nature must have missed the memo about the climate crisis.  

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Mother Nature must have missed the memo

Nah, it's actually just brent missing the memo (again) that this is actually expected in a La Niña cycle.

[brenthutch 383]

45 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nah, it's actually just brent missing the memo (again) that this is actually expected in a La Niña cycle.

AKA natural variability not CO2.  We are in agreement 

[olofscience 420]

Just now, brenthutch said:

AKA natural variability not CO2.  We are in agreement 

Nope. Natural variability doesn't mean CO2 doesn't also affect it.

I know it's hard for you to fit more than one thing in your head, but the cleverer children should be able to.

[brenthutch 383]

35 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nope. Natural variability doesn't mean CO2 doesn't also affect it.

I know it's hard for you to fit more than one thing in your head, but the cleverer children should be able to.

We all know that CO2 shrinks deserts and grows food production and possibly contributes a few tens of a degree to global temps but just how does CO2 constitute an “existential threat” to humanity?  How many predictions have to fall flat before you wise up.

(don’t fall back on “I’d tell you but you wouldn’t understand”)

Edited November 17, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

41 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How many predictions have to fall flat before you wise up.

The prediction I linked (here) not only predicted the trend, but the actual rank in terms of temperature (6th) of 2021 so accurately, so I wouldn't call that falling flat.

Your argument did, though. (as well as many of your other predictions here)

Oh, and you really wouldn't understand. Because it's really beyond your reasoning ability, but also because you do it on purpose. Weird how that works, right?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Mother Nature must have missed the memo about the climate crisis.  

We had a heat dome, massive wild fires and now massive flooding after historic rains. She got some kind of memo alright.

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

We had a heat dome, massive wild fires and now massive flooding after historic rains. She got some kind of memo alright.

I think the scientific term for that is weather. 

[billvon 2,391]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

We had a heat dome, massive wild fires and now massive flooding after historic rains. She got some kind of memo alright.

Yep.  Around here, with the drought we've had basically since 2006, you're not going to find many people willing to listen to climate change deniers.  They are living with the consequences of the warming.