The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[angelo]

What is post number 361, a pie with tomato ketchup?

It's not what I asked for, which was:

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Are you having trouble understanding?

Every single one so called 'expert' research paper of a coming doom has failed to materialise. Where can one start when every single prediction made has been and is pure bullshit. FFS, I've just asked for one single event predicted that's happened, and you can't even point to one!

 

[DBT]

That's odd, given that global temperature projections and their possible consequences are for mid century on.

 

[bigfield]

I've just asked for one single event predicted that's happened, and you can't even point to one!

No, you asked for the following:

1. A "prediction of doom"
2. that was made in the "past decade."
3. predicts something which was expected to occur by now.
4. and which has "actually occurred".

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred!

And to the best of my knowledge, no climate scientist has made a prediction that meets your criteria.

Every single one so called 'expert' research paper of a coming doom has failed to materialise.

Since you know of these research papers, it should be straightforward for you to give me at least some of the links.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but none of the following people qualify as experts on climate science:

• Politicians
• Media personalities
• Activists
• Scientists whose field is not climate science
• Bloggers

Only the following people qualify as experts:

• Climate scientists

FFS, I've just asked for one single event predicted that's happened, and you can't even point to one!

If you had simply asked me to produce an example of a research paper which made a correct prediction about an event, then I would have been able to get you one.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Hansen et al, 1981
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957
http://sci-hub.tw/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

Hansen et al correctly predicted both the growth in carbon emissions and the accompanying increase in global temperature.

Where can one start when every single prediction made has been and is pure bullshit.

Your statement is certainly bullshit.

 

[angelo]

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

So you are unable to present a single climate science report or research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

This is a thread about the science of climate change; I don't have any interest in predictions that aren't based on climate science, and I don't have any interest in what politicians and media personalities have to say about climate change.

This should be a wake up call for you: you've formed some pretty stupid ideas about climate change (example), probably because the information you're getting is filtered through the mass media and dipshit blogs.

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos? For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

 

[angelo]

These 500 gentlemen, most are experts, not shrill alarmists who have been crying like Chicken Little, " The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

 

[Jokodo]

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

So you are unable to present a single climate science report or research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

This is a thread about the science of climate change; I don't have any interest in predictions that aren't based on climate science, and I don't have any interest in what politicians and media personalities have to say about climate change.

This should be a wake up call for you: you've formed some pretty stupid ideas about climate change (example), probably because the information you're getting is filtered through the mass media and dipshit blogs.

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos? For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

What does "the warming increased by less than 0.3%" even mean, and why would you think that's relevant? I suppose you could mean to say the absolute average temperature of Earth (in kelvins) increased by 0.3%? But how is that relevant? Has anyone *ever* claimed CO2 is the sole determinant of temperatures and temperature and CO2 stand in a strictly linear relation?

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

 

[angelo]

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos? For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

What does "the warming increased by less than 0.3%" even mean, and why would you think that's relevant? I suppose you could mean to say the absolute average temperature of Earth (in kelvins) increased by 0.3%? But how is that relevant? Has anyone *ever* claimed CO2 is the sole determinant of temperatures and temperature and CO2 stand in a strictly linear relation?

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Do you have any idea at all why many people who run greenhouses buy CO2 producing machines for their greenhouses that increase CO2 by up to 2500 ppm in order to increase tenfold plant growth? Yet humans who work in these greenhouses, [ my daughter worked in them for years with no ill effect] are not effected in the slightest.

https://waytogrow.net/blogs/articles/growing-with-co2-improve-your-yield-part-ii

CO2 is a plant food that increases crop yields up to 5-6 times to what it normally would.

 

[bigfield]

a dumb arse like myself...

You said it.

...why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos?

Your question is based on a false premise. "Global warming" was not changed to "Climate change"; the two terms refer to different phonomena and both have been in use for a long time.

Firstly, the term "climate change" (and "climatic change") was in use in the scientific literature before the term "global warming".

Secondly, the terms have different meanings. "Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in global temperature, while "climate change" refers to changes including, but not limited to, temperature.

An advisor to the Bush administration did circulate a memo recommending that Republicans refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming", because the former sound less "catastrophic".

In his memorandum, Mr. Luntz urges that the term "climate change" be used instead of "global warming," because "while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

However, by this time, both "climate change" and "global warming" were already in common use in the scientific literature.

For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

If you can provide a source for this claim, I'll look at it and give you a response. I won't respond until I can verify that your numbers come from real measurements. (For all I know, you could be quoting some made-up numbers from a blog.)

These 500 gentlemen, most are experts, not shrill alarmists who have been crying like Chicken Little, " The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

I didn't watch the video, but the video description included the list of signatories:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

I can identify one climate scientist, Richard Lindzen, and there's a couple more I'm unsure about, but the overwhelming majority of the signatories on that list are definitely not experts on climate.

As I said:

I shouldn't have to explain this, but none of the following people qualify as experts on climate science:

• Politicians
• Media personalities
• Activists
• Scientists whose field is not climate science
• Bloggers

Only the following people qualify as experts:

• Climate scientists

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos? For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

What does "the warming increased by less than 0.3%" even mean, and why would you think that's relevant? I suppose you could mean to say the absolute average temperature of Earth (in kelvins) increased by 0.3%? But how is that relevant? Has anyone *ever* claimed CO2 is the sole determinant of temperatures and temperature and CO2 stand in a strictly linear relation?

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Do you have any idea at all why many people who run greenhouses buy CO2 producing machines for their greenhouses that increase CO2 by up to 2500 ppm in order to increase tenfold plant growth? Yet humans who work in these greenhouses, [ my daughter worked in them for years with no ill effect] are not effected in the slightest.

https://waytogrow.net/blogs/articles/growing-with-co2-improve-your-yield-part-ii

CO2 is a plant food that increases crop yields up to 5-6 times to what it normally would.

It works in the greenhouse where they have plenty of sun, water and nutrients. In the real world it tends not to work so well.

Production processes (and a growing plant is such) are almost entirely limited by whatever the most constrained step is. Improving anything else doesn't help.

 

[Jokodo]

You didn't answer how your previous assertion is supposed to be relevant (hint: it isn't).

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself why the moniker " GLOBAL WARMING' was changed to climate change? Could it possibly be because the warming failed to eventuate as predicted by the wackos? For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

What does "the warming increased by less than 0.3%" even mean, and why would you think that's relevant? I suppose you could mean to say the absolute average temperature of Earth (in kelvins) increased by 0.3%? But how is that relevant? Has anyone *ever* claimed CO2 is the sole determinant of temperatures and temperature and CO2 stand in a strictly linear relation?

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Do you have any idea at all why many people who run greenhouses buy CO2 producing machines for their greenhouses that increase CO2 by up to 2500 ppm in order to increase tenfold plant growth?

I'll need a source for "2500" and "tenfold" - neither is in your source, which doesn't give a figure to the increase, and explicitly states that "the recommended CO2 level is 1,200-1,500 ppm".
Anyway, it is not relevant to the issue at hand. No one has claimed that CO2 is poisonous to plants. The issue is CO2 capacity to increase heat retention, something that can be tested in the lab (and indeed in your backyard with equipment for less than 500 dollars), - and has been repeatedly tested for over 100 years.

Yet humans who work in these greenhouses, [ my daughter worked in them for years with no ill effect] are not effected in the slightest.

Indeed. Whoever claimed otherwise? How is this relevant? Does the fact that water is not poisonous and indeed necessary for survival prove that drowning is impossible and avalanches benign?

You have no clue.

 

[angelo]

You said it.



Your question is based on a false premise. "Global warming" was not changed to "Climate change"; the two terms refer to different phonomena and both have been in use for a long time.

Firstly, the term "climate change" (and "climatic change") was in use in the scientific literature before the term "global warming".

Secondly, the terms have different meanings. "Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in global temperature, while "climate change" refers to changes including, but not limited to, temperature.

An advisor to the Bush administration did circulate a memo recommending that Republicans refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming", because the former sound less "catastrophic".

In his memorandum, Mr. Luntz urges that the term "climate change" be used instead of "global warming," because "while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

However, by this time, both "climate change" and "global warming" were already in common use in the scientific literature.

For example, CO2 emissions increased by more than 20% yet the the warming increased by less 0.3% in the same time frame, or even far longer?

If you can provide a source for this claim, I'll look at it and give you a response. I won't respond until I can verify that your numbers come from real measurements. (For all I know, you could be quoting some made-up numbers from a blog.)

These 500 gentlemen, most are experts, not shrill alarmists who have been crying like Chicken Little, " The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

I didn't watch the video, but the video description included the list of signatories:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

I can identify one climate scientist, Richard Lindzen, and there's a couple more I'm unsure about, but the overwhelming majority of the signatories on that list are definitely not experts on climate.

As I said:

I shouldn't have to explain this, but none of the following people qualify as experts on climate science:

• Politicians
• Media personalities
• Activists
• Scientists whose field is not climate science
• Bloggers

Only the following people qualify as experts:

• Climate scientists

Besides " climate modelers" feeding rubbish in to computers to get a desired result, how many of these modelers are actual fully qualified physicists and phd's, or how many aren't reliant on government grants? Or better still. How many have had their papers peer reviewed and actually using the scientific method of experiment and observation?

 

[bigfield]

Besides " climate modelers" feeding rubbish in to computers to get a desired result, how many of these modelers are actual fully qualified physicists and phd's, or how many aren't reliant on government grants? Or better still. How many have had their papers peer reviewed and actually using the scientific method of experiment and observation?

It's quite common for climate scientists to have degrees in atmospheric physics or geophysics, and it's common for climate scientists to have PhDs. It's also the norm for climate research to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they could not get published if their methods were not scientific.

Your questions could imply that you consider university qualifications and peer-reviewed research to be important, but I don't think your concerns are sincere. You've made a number of scientifically-illiterate statements in your posts which shows us that you don't have any respect for the science.

 

[angelo]

Besides " climate modelers" feeding rubbish in to computers to get a desired result, how many of these modelers are actual fully qualified physicists and phd's, or how many aren't reliant on government grants? Or better still. How many have had their papers peer reviewed and actually using the scientific method of experiment and observation?

It's quite common for climate scientists to have degrees in atmospheric physics or geophysics, and it's common for climate scientists to have PhDs. It's also the norm for climate research to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they could not get published if their methods were not scientific.

Your questions could imply that you consider university qualifications and peer-reviewed research to be important, but I don't think your concerns are sincere. You've made a number of scientifically-illiterate statements in your posts which shows us that you don't have any respect for the science.

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

 

[Jokodo]

Besides " climate modelers" feeding rubbish in to computers to get a desired result, how many of these modelers are actual fully qualified physicists and phd's, or how many aren't reliant on government grants? Or better still. How many have had their papers peer reviewed and actually using the scientific method of experiment and observation?

It's quite common for climate scientists to have degrees in atmospheric physics or geophysics, and it's common for climate scientists to have PhDs. It's also the norm for climate research to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they could not get published if their methods were not scientific.

Your questions could imply that you consider university qualifications and peer-reviewed research to be important, but I don't think your concerns are sincere. You've made a number of scientifically-illiterate statements in your posts which shows us that you don't have any respect for the science.

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

You haven't answered a single question. Is it because you don't understand them, or because you secretly know you can't?

 

[fromderinside]

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

You haven't answered a single question. Is it because you don't understand them, or because you secretly know you can't?

What do you expect when he posts a video chat between two MAGA cage fighter, still wet behind the ears, astrologists - we all know he confuses them with astrophysicists - as providing evidence for something that exists in the Mind of MAGAidot*.

*^{_{due credit. We omit "o" from idiot to reflect the true nature of the piece of orange blubber leading them.}}

 

[bigfield]

Besides " climate modelers" feeding rubbish in to computers to get a desired result, how many of these modelers are actual fully qualified physicists and phd's, or how many aren't reliant on government grants? Or better still. How many have had their papers peer reviewed and actually using the scientific method of experiment and observation?

It's quite common for climate scientists to have degrees in atmospheric physics or geophysics, and it's common for climate scientists to have PhDs. It's also the norm for climate research to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they could not get published if their methods were not scientific.

Your questions could imply that you consider university qualifications and peer-reviewed research to be important, but I don't think your concerns are sincere. You've made a number of scientifically-illiterate statements in your posts which shows us that you don't have any respect for the science.

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

OK, let's give this astrophysicist, Joseph Postma MSc, a chance to make his case.

In 2011, Postma published an article in Principia Scientific International in which he claims to disprove the existence of the greenhouse effect.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

Principia Scientific International is not a peer-reviewed journal; it was founded specifically for the purpose of publishing articles arguing that the greenhouse effect isn't real.

https://principia-scientific.org/articles-of-association/

Postma's article criticises a basic textbook model of the greenhouse effect but makes some basic errors because he doesn't understand what he's looking at. The article couldn't possibly pass peer-review.

Postma doesn't have any climate science articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The errors in his paper suggest he doesn't understand climate science, even at an undergraduate level. His claim, that the greenhouse effect isn't real, is audacious.

Culd you please enlighten a dumb arse like myself

You are pretty determined to remain a dumb arse, so I don't like my chances.

 

[bilby]

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

You haven't answered a single question. Is it because you don't understand them, or because you secretly know you can't?

Now, that's hardly fair. I don't think it's a secret at all.

 

[angelo]

Go Australia. We will solve climate catastrophe all on our own. Who needs the rest of the world to save the planet!

Here's a small sample of how many coal plants there are in the world today:

The EU has 468 plants building 27 more for a total 495

Turkey has 56 plants building 93 more total 149

South Africa has 79 building 24 more total 103

India has 589 building 446 more total 1036

Philippines has 19 building 60 more total 79

South Korea has 58 building 26 more total 84

Japan has 90 building 45 more total 135

AND CHINA has 2363 building 1171 total 3534

AUSTRALIA is planning to shut down their
remaining 6 plants.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

 

[angelo]

https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.

You haven't answered a single question. Is it because you don't understand them, or because you secretly know you can't?

Now, that's hardly fair. I don't think it's a secret at all.

No, of course I don't have a clue on how cultists think. Actually I do, but for the purpose of this discussion? let's say I know FA!

 

[Jokodo]

Now, that's hardly fair. I don't think it's a secret at all.

No, of course I don't have a clue on how cultists think. Actually I do, but for the purpose of this discussion? let's say I know FA!

no need to pretend. You actually believe "humans do alright breathing in 1200 ppm CO2, therefore 450 can't possibly be a problem" is a valid argument.

It's a bit like saying "people take showers using 15 liters of water every day, therefore being hit by a 15 kg block if ice can't be a problem", only slightly more stupid.