TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
Hmmm, not really seeing any evidence of that though.
-
Features
New report on climate change released today
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
Hmmm, not really seeing any evidence of that though.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,799
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Have you been looking at all? Because there's fucking SHITLOADS of it.
I mean, you could try asking pretty much any climatologist. Get twenty qualified people together, and unless you deliberately selected only those who agree with your preconceived position, at least nineteen will be able to provide the evidence you haven't seen.
Which cycle explains the last 15 summers down here? AMO doesn't explain it, nor do the shorter oscillations NAO and ENSO.
If you have 100 years of observation then on any given day you are unlikely to have recorded all possible outcomes. You will still get record highs and record lows without any change in the mean. You start to think that the mean is changing, that the observations aren't just due to chance, when you start having a disproportionate number of observations on one side of the mean or the other.
From 1890 to 1990 the mean daily minimum here was 72-73F in June-September. Two standard deviations either side of that gave you a range of 67 to 78. The weather does not vary much here in summer. Our weather is dominated by a maritime subtroprical airmass. Of course on any given day you could go to 99th percentile on the high or low end. and see something as low at 62 or as high as 82. Daily minimum temperatures above 80F are rare in the record prior to year 2000. We've had more daily mins above 80F in the last 10 years 2008-2018 than in the prior 100 years combined. For the last few summers we have managed to go the entire June-September period without the temperature going below 72 for the entire wet season. So the long term mean is 72 with a 2 standard deviation range of 67 to 78. How many consecutive summers need to happen during which the daily minimum temperature never drops below the long term mean before we consider that the climate has changed?
And back to question. What natural cycle explains the observations? AMO is quite visible in the data minimum daily temperature data for the wet season here. We are in a 'minimum' in that cycle right now and are still well above the maximums observed between 1900 and 2000. The mean varies between 71 and 73 for 100 years and then poof it is now 75-78. I'm sure some climatologist has published a paper describing the natural cause of the rapid and now persistent shift.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
Sometimes it is when it suits the alarmist narrative.
AirPoh
Veteran Member
Not that it matters what you see or don't see, but I suggest you open your eyes.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
Eyes and ears are open fella.
Elixir
Made in America
Still not seeing any evidence, Swizzle?
repoman
Contributor
The only way to illustrate what is happening to you, TSwizzle and Angelo, is to start from the basics.
Notice I said illustrate, NOT persuade. This is not social science or politics or even human health which have a lot a vagaries compare to the bedrock science of radiative balance for ANY planet with an appreciable atmosphere and a nearby star.
But, what really matters is in these screeds and assertions that you are making is if they were all laid out in bullets points and if they were shown how they were false if you would concede that you were wrong.
You have made many points most are either wrong or besides the point. Sometimes you say things that are accurate.
Notice I said illustrate, NOT persuade. This is not social science or politics or even human health which have a lot a vagaries compare to the bedrock science of radiative balance for ANY planet with an appreciable atmosphere and a nearby star.
But, what really matters is in these screeds and assertions that you are making is if they were all laid out in bullets points and if they were shown how they were false if you would concede that you were wrong.
You have made many points most are either wrong or besides the point. Sometimes you say things that are accurate.
AEI is ok for economic numbers but I wouldn't trust them farther than that.
I'm not sure I would use "food" but I understand what you mean. What you don't understand is limiting factors--plant growth is limited by whatever is in the lowest supply. Increasing the supply of other things has a very minimal effect. This is why iron fertilization of the ocean causes a huge bloom. (It doesn't work for dealing with global warming, though--while a lot of CO2 gets absorbed a small part of it comes back as methane which does as much damage as the CO2 that was removed.)
Since I don't think you're actually this stupid you need to reconsider what you are actually saying here.
There are plenty of factors that lead to cooling--and in the short run they win. That's why we don't just have a uniformly increasing temperature. It's just these things are cycles and cycles reverse themselves. When they are going down the Earth doesn't warm and might even cool a bit--and the deniers proclaim that warming is over. Inevitably, though, the cycles then go the other way and we get another record hot year.
Once again, showing you don't understand. We don't have record cold in the northern hemisphere. What we have is some record cold in inhabited portions of the northern hemisphere. This isn't cooling, though, but cold spilling down from the polar regions where people weren't experiencing it.
1) Adwalled.
2) Opinion piece.
3) South Africa. A place ruled by a HIV denier for a decade and a total mess these days.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
repoman
Contributor
Are you actually interested in finding out what changing the carbon dioxide from 280 ppm to 406+ppm will do to the heat content of the earth and the climate?
Why would you purposefully look for either accidental or ideologically driven overstatements of the problem if you did not have motivated reasoning for it not to be true?
Have you even pointed out an understated prediction to ridicule models?
You are doing the AGW equivalent to what these remainers are doing (copied from twitter)
When you finally get to the point where you say that warmer is better and CO2 will supercharge plant growth, which Loren showed was false.
Why would you purposefully look for either accidental or ideologically driven overstatements of the problem if you did not have motivated reasoning for it not to be true?
Have you even pointed out an understated prediction to ridicule models?
You are doing the AGW equivalent to what these remainers are doing (copied from twitter)
When you finally get to the point where you say that warmer is better and CO2 will supercharge plant growth, which Loren showed was false.
repoman
Contributor
I wonder if this is counter productive, what Youtube does for many videos (open in youtube) about climate change:
look at the preface and link to Wikipedia. This will fuel a conspiracy minded response.
Also, don't like how the word denial is used for this topic. People were accused of denying Christ, but that was not a matter of empirical facts buttressed by a top to bottom theory.
We don't call creationists evolution deniers and that is like 99.99999999999% proven (the 0.0000000001% chance it is not evolution is from a prankster god making it look like it was), compared to say 99.999% proven for AGW.
It is a word that backfires and I am not sure what is a better option.
look at the preface and link to Wikipedia. This will fuel a conspiracy minded response.
Also, don't like how the word denial is used for this topic. People were accused of denying Christ, but that was not a matter of empirical facts buttressed by a top to bottom theory.
We don't call creationists evolution deniers and that is like 99.99999999999% proven (the 0.0000000001% chance it is not evolution is from a prankster god making it look like it was), compared to say 99.999% proven for AGW.
It is a word that backfires and I am not sure what is a better option.
angelo
Deleted
And that someone is Al Gore and his ilk of idiots. No wait............He's made millions out of the scam. The sheeple who believe the shit are the real idiots!
angelo
Deleted
Yea, right. So, which one of those 18 mentioned in that article has occurred?
angelo
Deleted
I'll keep repeating, and no one here or elsewhere can prove me wrong. That it's far from been established that CO2 is causing warming. Climate science has completely ignored either unaware or deliberately that the normal global average temperature for nearl all of the last one billion years has been 2-3C warmer than today.
It has never been at the IPCC preferred cooler figure, outside glacial episodes. How do these charlatans and con artists feeding off taxpayers subsidies explain that!
Global warming/climate change is the Earth returning to a warmer normal temperature. CO2, is a thoroughly discredited mechanism., desperately defended by very poor climate science through lack of any alternative mechanism, while ignoring at least one billion years of known climate history.
To scare the shite out of the general population, and assure the funds don't stop flowing into this giant hoax, [an even bigger hoax than religious indoctrination of the masses] is hoisted upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of the leftist dominated UN and left leaders like the previous Obongo administration.
It has never been at the IPCC preferred cooler figure, outside glacial episodes. How do these charlatans and con artists feeding off taxpayers subsidies explain that!
Global warming/climate change is the Earth returning to a warmer normal temperature. CO2, is a thoroughly discredited mechanism., desperately defended by very poor climate science through lack of any alternative mechanism, while ignoring at least one billion years of known climate history.
To scare the shite out of the general population, and assure the funds don't stop flowing into this giant hoax, [an even bigger hoax than religious indoctrination of the masses] is hoisted upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of the leftist dominated UN and left leaders like the previous Obongo administration.
repoman
Contributor
I suggest you watch this Potholer54 video.
Note #1--adwalled. I didn't feel like lowering my defenses to read it.
The problem is you will only accept catastrophe as evidence that it's going to lead to catastrophe.
<Once again, shoves Angelo off a skyscraper>
What are you complaining about? It's just a bit windy. Only squawk if there's a real problem!
Not established?!?! What's causing the 14C of greenhouse effect the Earth currently experiences?? Unicorn farts?