A Model Failure

[brenthutch 383]

“Accurately reproducing regional temperature differences over the past 40+ years is beyond the capability of climate model simulations, and even fails for major ocean basins and continents. The result suggests the existence of major issues with all models”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2022GL097716

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Still calls for changes to avoid negative effects of climate change, just disagrees with the pace of it. That study doesn't agree with your standpoint that climate change is not negative, no changes have to be made and the there is a net benefit to warming.

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Still calls for changes to avoid negative effects of climate change, just disagrees with the pace of it. That study doesn't agree with your standpoint that climate change is not negative, no changes have to be made and the there is a net benefit to warming.

So far the facts are in agreement with my position, (declining climate related deaths and growing food supply). Humans are well suited adapt to any climate related challenges we may face in the future, we have been doing it for tens of thousands of years,(and without the benefit of modern technology). No need for a carbon tax or green energy boondoggles.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So far the facts are in agreement with my position, (declining climate related deaths and growing food supply). Humans are well suited adapt to any climate related challenges we may face in the future, we have been doing it for tens of thousands of years,(and without the benefit of modern technology). No need for a carbon tax or green energy boondoggles.

The problem is that the evidence you provide for your "facts" generally ends up not agreeing with you. So even when you think the "facts" align with you view, you tend to be wrong.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The problem is that the evidence you provide for your "facts" generally ends up not agreeing with you. So even when you think the "facts" align with you view, you tend to be wrong.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-activists-disasters-fire-storms-deaths-change-cop26-glasgow-global-warming-11635973538
 

Show me where I am wrong.  While you’re at is show me evidence of the existential threat of man made climate change 

Edited April 26, 2022 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

You are rebutting my argument with an opinion piece without seeing the irony.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You are rebutting my argument with an opinion piece without seeing the irony.

https://images.app.goo.gl/1w2rQ7mEK9P5i44J6
 

not an option piece 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

You have moved from an opinion piece to Facebook as the source, without seeing the irony.

 

[wmw999 2,120]

Not to mention that the advance of building technology and storm/flood warnings is driving a large portion of these declines. So I guess the health corollary is eat, drink, and be merry as long as there’s weight reduction surgery and Lipitor

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,395]

30 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You have moved from an opinion piece to Facebook as the source, without seeing the irony.

But maybe he got some likes.

[brenthutch 383]

47 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You have moved from an opinion piece to Facebook as the source, without seeing the irony.

 

Wrong 

OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data

https://ourworldindata.org/ofdacred-international-disaster-data

The irony is that you persist in attacking the messenger because you have no way of refuting the basic facts: Food production up…Climate deaths down.

Edited April 26, 2022 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

40 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Not to mention that the advance of building technology and storm/flood warnings is driving a large portion of these declines. So I guess the health corollary is eat, drink, and be merry as long as there’s weight reduction surgery and Lipitor

Wendy P. 

Your metaphors are truly though provoking. 

[olofscience 420]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Accurately reproducing regional temperature differences over the past 40+ years is beyond the capability of brent. The result suggests the existence of major issues with brent's ability to understand basic science”

FIFY. 

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

FIFY. 

Aren’t you a clever boy.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The irony is that you persist in attacking the messenger because you have no way of refuting the basic facts: Food production up…Climate deaths down.

Why would I want to refute that? I am waiting for you to provide evidence of the correlation and causation.

You seem to think that less people dying from falling of buildings must mean gravity doesn't work, or people have learned to fly.

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Why would I want to refute that? I am waiting for you to provide evidence of the correlation and causation.

It's what he does - bait with some cherry-picked links, then challenge people to refute it, even if he hasn't done any work since it's someone else's points in the first place.

If someone actually does the work to refute it, he'll just drop it and move on to the next topic.

That's all he's got to contribute. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Why would I want to refute that? I am waiting for you to provide evidence of the correlation and causation.

You seem to think that less people dying from falling of buildings must mean gravity doesn't work, or people have learned to fly.

I just need to show that climate change is NOT leading to more climate related deaths and reduced food production, and I have done that quite nicely.  I don’t need to get into the weeds about how elevated levels of CO2 are good for plants or how EF4 and EF5 tornadoes are now exceedingly rare.  That ground has already been plowed.  Ball is in your court, make the case for the existential threat of man-made climate climate change and what, when, where and how we are going to do something about it.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If someone actually does the work to refute it, he'll just drop it and move on to the next topic.

 

I have been waiting 19 years and no one has been up to the task.  Perhaps you would like to take a crack at it.  Show me that we are currently in a CO2 driven “climate crisis” posing an existential threat to humanity.  If that is beyond your capacity (and I suspect it is) I suggest you go back on the porch and take a seat, my young friend.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I just need to show that climate change is NOT leading to more climate related deaths and reduced food production, and I have done that quite nicely.

You aren't showing men have learned to fly cause less people are dying from falling off buildings.

Because deaths from natural disasters are down does not automatically prove that climate change is not leading to more climate related deaths. Again, you are failing to provide evidence of correlation.

But, I don't think you actually care about this, science or anything like that. All you really care about is being able to laugh at memes that "own the libs".

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Because deaths from natural disasters are down does not automatically prove that climate change is not leading to more climate related deaths. Again, you are failing to provide evidence of correlation.

So the fact that climate related deaths are down isn’t proof that climate related deaths aren’t up?  Very interesting.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So the fact that climate related deaths are down isn’t proof that climate related deaths aren’t up?  Very interesting.

No. The fact that deaths from natural disasters are down doesn't necessarily prove that climate change does not have an adverse effect on deaths.

Again causation and correlation. But I know that isn't very meme "own the libs" worthy.

[brenthutch 383]

57 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Again causation and correlation. 

Like atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Like atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures?

I'll assume you are giving up on the previous one.

[brenthutch 383]

31 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I'll assume you are giving up on the previous one.

No, just piling on. The CAGW community presents a target rich environment.

The trend is not your friend, my friend.

Edited April 26, 2022 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Just now, brenthutch said:

No, just piling on.

Appears that your understanding of correlation and causation is as strong as your understanding of "pilling on" and "continue digging."

Since you aren't presenting evidence there isn't much else to discuss.