The Continent’s Consensus on Climate?……Crumbling

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes. 

Okay then. Party on.

[JoeWeber 2,316]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Okay then. Party on.

And I might have had you not wisened the subject to the game. But at least you got to post one more time.

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

And I might have had you not wisened the subject to the game. But at least you got to post one more time.

Don't worry. He won't stop. So you won't have to. Am I supposed to count or limit my posts now?

[JoeWeber 2,316]

34 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Don't worry. He won't stop. So you won't have to. Am I supposed to count or limit my posts now?

Not at all. Take as many selfies as you like.

[BIGUN 1,061]

On 4/16/2024 at 2:24 PM, brenthutch said:

Yes, it gets hot, it gets cold, it rains then it doesn’t rain, the wind blows then it doesn’t, I like to call it WEATHER!

That's called "Climate."

They're talking about "Climate Change" which leads to "Global Warming." 

You do realize that a PERMANENT 1 degree change would have a significant impact on the world?

The attached link is IMO the single best reference for those who "wish" to understand more of the basics of this impact.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/   

Brent, I'm not going to get into a long circular argument with you. At this point, you have enough info to re-orient your position and pick a new azimuth - or not,

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

That's called "Climate."

They're talking about "Climate Change" which leads to "Global Warming." 

You do realize that a PERMANENT 1 degree change would have a significant impact on the world?

The attached link is IMO the single best reference for those who "wish" to understand more of the basics of this impact.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/   

Brent, I'm not going to get into a long circular argument with you. At this point, you have enough info to re-orient your position and pick a new azimuth - or not,

I hope you know the difference between projections and observations.

Other than a slight warming, none of those predictions have panned out.

 

[olofscience 422]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I hope you know the difference between projections and observations.

You're one to speak, you don't even know the difference between observations and models 

Now you're pretending to know better than NASA? 

 

(cue brent citing a cherry-picked, obscure, old paper with inaccurate predictions, not representative of the general scientific consensus, to "prove" his point)

(edit2: also he'll use one of his denier sites to do this, since he can't understand the papers themselves)

Edited April 19 by olofscience

[olofscience 422]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Other than a slight warming, none of those predictions have panned out.

You predicted 2023 to "not even reach the top five" warmest years.

 

Instead, it smashed all records. Interesting how you're now dissing NASA's predictive capability 

[brenthutch 384]

26 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You predicted 2023 to "not even reach the top five" warmest years.

 

Instead, it smashed all records. Interesting how you're now dissing NASA's predictive capability 

But I also predicted there would be record coal production. I predicted CO2 emissions would continue to increase. (So much for “energy transition”) I predicted floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires would remain within historical range. I predicted Polar bears would continue to thrive. I predicted global food production would remain at or near record levels (thanks CO2). I predicted the Polar ice cap would remain year round. And I predicted ICE vehicles sales would continue to outpace EVs. (I know that one hurts Olof). All in all I think I did pretty well.

[BIGUN 1,061]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Other than a slight warming, none of those predictions have panned out.

- or not.

[brenthutch 384]

21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

- or not.

 

We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months,” the now-defunct ThinkProgress predicted 43 months ago.

Former French prime minister Laurent Fabius warned 3,239 days ago that the international community had only “500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Earlier, in 2009, Gordon Brown, the U.K.’s prime minister at the time, said we had “fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe.”

Also in 2009, former vice president Al Gore declared that “there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

In 2013, mid-melt, the Guardian ran the following headline: “US Navy predicts summer ice-free Arctic by 2016.”

The ice is still there.

“NASA Scientist: We’re Toast,” reads the headline of an Associated Press report from 2008.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The U.N.’s chief climate science body retracted the claim in 2010, explaining the prediction wasn’t based on any peer-reviewed data, but on a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999.

In 2006, Gore claimed that unless world leaders took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Earth would surpass the “point of no return” in ten years — a “true planetary emergency,” he called it.

The year 2016 came and went, and now we’re being told the early 2030s are the real point of no return.

The Guardian, citing a “secret report,” warned in 2004 that “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

“U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked,” the AP reported in 1989.

The report’s opening line reads, “senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

[wmw999 2,129]

Someone else being wrong doesn't actually make you right. Kind of like how pushing someone else down doesn't actually make you taller or stronger, or calling someone else stupid doesn't make you smarter.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

But I also predicted there would be record coal production. I predicted CO2 emissions would continue to increase.

You could also predict that the sun would rise tomorrow and nobody would give a shit.

Those "'predictions" you made didn't have much uncertainty to begin with, which is why nobody gives a shit. It doesn't make you clever like you think it does.

 

And I remember, I asked you to make an actual prediction (on an uncertain subject, predict a specific number) and you just ran away "to watch the game". 

Edited April 19 by olofscience

[BIGUN 1,061]

34 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Kind of like how pushing someone else down doesn't actually make you taller or stronger,

Now, hold on - let's talk about this . . . 

[billvon 2,406]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Kind of like how pushing someone else down doesn't actually make you taller or stronger

Well, if you hold em down you can CLAIM you are taller!  And who's going to argue?  Certainly not that guy who can't get up.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I hope you know the difference between projections and observations.

Other than a slight warming, none of those predictions have panned out.

So kind of like triggering two tax events now, because you are predicting catastrophe in the future?

[brenthutch 384]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So kind of like triggering two tax events now, because you are predicting catastrophe in the future?

Trump tax cuts expire, child tax credit ends, rental properties fully depreciate…Doesn’t seem like a stretch.

Edited April 19 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,061]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I predicted CO2 emissions would continue to increase. (So much for “energy transition”) I predicted floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires would remain within historical range. I predicted Polar bears would continue to thrive. I predicted global food production would remain at or near record levels (thanks CO2). I predicted the Polar ice cap would remain year round. And I predicted ICE vehicles sales would continue to outpace EVs. (I know that one hurts Olof). All in all I think I did pretty well.

Trump?!?!?!

Is that you?

[billvon 2,406]

13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Trump?!?!?!

Is that you?

No one predicts past events like BH.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

No one predicts past events like BH.

Did those in 2022.

[brenthutch 384]

11 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Someone else being wrong doesn't actually make you right. 

Wendy P.

Well when one side says the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020 and the other side says they won’t….2020 comes and goes and the glaciers are still there…it kinda does.

[wmw999 2,129]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Well when one side says the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020 and the other side says they won’t….2020 comes and goes and the glaciers are still there…it kinda does.

Yeah, the fact that there are only roughly 50 when 35 years ago there were 350 is irrelevant. And if I gain enough weight to be obese, but not super-obese, that means I'm not fat, right?

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,129]

Just now, wmw999 said:

Yeah, the fact that there are only roughly 50 when 35 years ago there were 350 is irrelevant. And if I gain enough weight to be obese, but not super-obese, that means I'm not fat, right?

USGS on Glacier National Park

Wendy P.

 

[brenthutch 384]

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

 

2016, it’s as out of date as their predictions.

[olofscience 422]

On 4/19/2024 at 2:14 PM, wmw999 said:

Someone else being wrong doesn't actually make you right.

Brent can only handle one variable at a time, as he has proved again and again.

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

…it kinda does.

...and again