3 ms·

I'm not sure I'm seeing the wrong predictions about wildfires; it looks to me as if there are two separate things going on. 1. Hotter drier summers make for mo

by gjm11 7y ago

I'm not sure I'm seeing the wrong predictions about wildfires; it looks to me as if there are two separate things going on. 1. Hotter drier summers make for more and worse wildfires in places like Yellowstone (where a big wildfire in 2012 was the context for that 2012 article). If human activity makes the climate warmer, these will be worse. 2. Increasing agriculture tends overall to lead to fewer fires, for complicated reasons that differ from one environment to another. The climate is warming, but at the same time the population is growing and many parts of the world are getting richer and more "developed". So you get both #1 and #2 happening. The IPCC in 2001, and Steven Running in 2012, weren't (so far as I can see) saying anything about #2. Quite possibly they never thought about the impact of increasing population and development on wildfires, which seems fair enough: that's not really their remit. I haven't seen anything to suggest that #2 is wrong. (The 2017 Science article mentioned by Science Daily reiterates that warming climate tends to increase fires; it just says that over the period they studied the effects of human activity have been larger and in the other direction.) What's the problem here? > an even more weird prediction Again, I'm not sure what the problem is meant to be here. One scientist tried to model the effects of climate change on the length of the day. Some others did the same and also measured what the effect actually is. It seems like the first one got it wrong. Scientists in all fields get things wrong all the time. I don't see that we can conclude anything from this other than that oceanographers aren't all infallible, which is ... not a surprise. > far larger swings in temperatures in history with no problems at all Those are in prehistory, which is relevant because we don't have the records that would tell us whether there were "no problems at all". The most recent of those "far larger swings" you identified is between ~20k years ago and now. That time 20k years ago was the so-called "Last Glacial Maximum", and at that point Canada was completely covered by an ice sheet, as was much of northern Europe; sea level was ~125m lower than now. I am curious about what you consider "no problems at all". > I actually don't know of any climate alarmist who claims we are going to warm the planet 14 celsius warmer Sure. I used that figure because you were saying how fantastic everything was when the planet was 14 degrees C warmer. It may have been excellent in some sense, but I think it would be very bad for the human race if we returned to those conditions. I'm not saying we will (I doubt it), just disagreeing with your apparent opinion about what it would be like if we did. > the graph I provided shows around 7 Celsius warmer at the 8.5% increase per year rate ... more like 0.85% Sorry, which graph? I guess you mean the one on the Wikipedia page, which is mostly of (pre-)historical data, with IPCC projections for 2050 and 2100? What is it that those projections assume an 8.5% increase of per year that's actually more like 0.85%? (I haven't found anything for which that's accurate, but I haven't looked very hard because presumably you can just tell me.) > This should have already happened Could you be more specific? What exactly did Gore say was going to happen by when, and where did he say it? I'll be frank: I do not believe that Gore claimed that large fractions of Florida would be underwater by now, and suspect you have been lied to. But I could be wrong! Here's the best match I can find for that claim. Gore said something (I can't find his exact wording; it seems to have been vague, perhaps deliberately) about a 20ft (~= 6m) rise in sea levels. If there were a rise that big, then the southern part of Florida would look a little like that picture (though I'm not convinced it's very accurate). But so far as I can tell he didn't put a timescale on it, and I bet he never said or implied that it would happen within 13 years. Now, I'm pretty sure we won't in fact see a 6m sea-level rise this century, and depending on exactly what Gore said he may have been badly wrong. But not -- unless you have more detailed information to offer that says otherwise -- wrong in the specific way you say he was wrong.

sleepysysadmin 7y ago
>The climate is warming, but at the same time the population is growing and many parts of the world are getting richer and more "developed". So you get both #1 and #2 happening. What's the problem here? The problem is that they themselves have made predictions which contradict themselves. This is pretty much the status quo for climate change science. They predict everything to happen. When some route happens they claim success. When you remove these nostradamus folks. You are left with virtually nothing in climate science. The climate is changing no question, the problem is that the hippies/commies have taken over climate change and are using climate change to propose their political positions as the fix to climate change. Except they have absolutely no basis in their proposals. Go read the "new green deal" and find out why there was unanimous support at crushing it. Yet the presidential candidates are all pushing effectively the same thing in the name of climate change. The new green deal has nothing to do with climate change, it has everything to do with economic inequality. >Again, I'm not sure what the problem is meant to be here. One scientist tried to model the effects of climate change on the length of the day. Some others did the same and also measured what the effect actually is. It seems like the first one got it wrong. Scientists in all fields get things wrong all the time. I don't see that we can conclude anything from this other than that oceanographers aren't all infallible, which is ... not a surprise. Point I am making is that climate scientists are rolling out the bullshit train. Just to keep their government grants coming in. >Those are in prehistory, which is relevant because we don't have the records that would tell us whether there were "no problems at all". Actually we do; whether you think geology and archaeology is a science or not I guess would be the decider here. We know during these warmer periods we have significantly more life on earth. In fact the areas near the equator became more green. Which isn't a surprise, places like the congo or amazon or other places at the equator arent deserts, they are more green than anywhere else. If we are currently at "4 nuclear bombs a second" of climate change. Obviously implying imminent and immediate death. Then the Eocene which was 14 celcius warmer would have been a desert planet. Protip; it wasnt. What this 4 nuclear bombs a second actually is... is doomsayers. It's climate alarmism that has been ongoing for 30 years. They are saying we are doomed for 30 years and it's no different than the Mayan Calendar folks. >The most recent of those "far larger swings" you identified is between ~20k years ago and now. That time 20k years ago was the so-called "Last Glacial Maximum", and at that point Canada was completely covered by an ice sheet, as was much of northern Europe; sea level was ~125m lower than now. Do you also assert that warming since the LGM is manmade? Overall I'm not seeing the problem at all. >Sure. I used that figure because you were saying how fantastic everything was when the planet was 14 degrees C warmer. It may have been excellent in some sense, but I think it would be very bad for the human race if we returned to those conditions. I'm not saying we will (I doubt it), just disagreeing with your apparent opinion about what it would be like if we did. How would it be bad for the human race? Even if the climate alarmists are correct(which we know they are not) and it's suddenly mad max desert out there. Humans will live just fine; we are planning to move to far more inhospitable places like mars or space. >What is it that those projections assume an 8.5% increase of per year that's actually more like 0.85%? (I haven't found anything for which that's accurate, but I haven't looked very hard because presumably you can just tell me.) The report which is linked right in the graph with the 2050 and 2100 predictions literally explains itself. They predicted 5 different levels. RCP0, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5 The predictions in the graph pretty much assume worst case scenario of 8.5. Except this report has been out for over 10 years now. We now have the actual data to say which of them is happening. The actual number? RCP 0.8 They were off by a multiple of 10. When you look at how bad RCP 0.8 is... the 2100 prediction is like 0.5celcius warmer. Virtually none of the predictions like Al Gore's underwater florida can happen by 2100. This is from their own data. They have been completely discredited. >Could you be more specific? What exactly did Gore say was going to happen by when, and where did he say it? Al Gore in the Inconvenient Truth said Florida would be underwater by 2014. http://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200612/20061205/20061205_108_350x263.jpg http://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://s... There's literally the picture of him standing infront of his prediction that Florida would be underwater. As far as I'm aware we have passed 2014 and he's wrong. Just plain wrong. >But so far as I can tell he didn't put a timescale on it, and I bet he never said or implied that it would happen within 13 years. Actually he said it on video MANY times since the film released. To be fair, he's not a scientist. He's just entirely financially dependent on pushing climate alarmism. He was reiterating what the other climate alarmists were saying. Here's a more recent quote of his: These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years. >Now, I'm pretty sure we won't in fact see a 6m sea-level rise this century, and depending on exactly what Gore said he may have been badly wrong. But not -- unless you have more detailed information to offer that says otherwise -- wrong in the specific way you say he was wrong. I actually believe we will see a sea-level rise. Not because of fossil fuels but simply population and renewable energy. When every house has solar panels and nuclear fusion is pumping out 1cent/kwh electricity. People will use more electricity and this will result in even more waste energy which will heat up the world.

by gjm11 7y ago

sleepysysadmin 7y ago

>The climate is warming, but at the same time the population is growing and many parts of the world are getting richer and more "developed". So you get both #1 and #2 happening. What's the problem here? The problem is that they themselves have made predictions which contradict themselves. This is pretty much the status quo for climate change science. They predict everything to happen. When some route happens they claim success. When you remove these nostradamus folks. You are left with virtually nothing in climate science. The climate is changing no question, the problem is that the hippies/commies have taken over climate change and are using climate change to propose their political positions as the fix to climate change. Except they have absolutely no basis in their proposals. Go read the "new green deal" and find out why there was unanimous support at crushing it. Yet the presidential candidates are all pushing effectively the same thing in the name of climate change. The new green deal has nothing to do with climate change, it has everything to do with economic inequality. >Again, I'm not sure what the problem is meant to be here. One scientist tried to model the effects of climate change on the length of the day. Some others did the same and also measured what the effect actually is. It seems like the first one got it wrong. Scientists in all fields get things wrong all the time. I don't see that we can conclude anything from this other than that oceanographers aren't all infallible, which is ... not a surprise. Point I am making is that climate scientists are rolling out the bullshit train. Just to keep their government grants coming in. >Those are in prehistory, which is relevant because we don't have the records that would tell us whether there were "no problems at all". Actually we do; whether you think geology and archaeology is a science or not I guess would be the decider here. We know during these warmer periods we have significantly more life on earth. In fact the areas near the equator became more green. Which isn't a surprise, places like the congo or amazon or other places at the equator arent deserts, they are more green than anywhere else. If we are currently at "4 nuclear bombs a second" of climate change. Obviously implying imminent and immediate death. Then the Eocene which was 14 celcius warmer would have been a desert planet. Protip; it wasnt. What this 4 nuclear bombs a second actually is... is doomsayers. It's climate alarmism that has been ongoing for 30 years. They are saying we are doomed for 30 years and it's no different than the Mayan Calendar folks. >The most recent of those "far larger swings" you identified is between ~20k years ago and now. That time 20k years ago was the so-called "Last Glacial Maximum", and at that point Canada was completely covered by an ice sheet, as was much of northern Europe; sea level was ~125m lower than now. Do you also assert that warming since the LGM is manmade? Overall I'm not seeing the problem at all. >Sure. I used that figure because you were saying how fantastic everything was when the planet was 14 degrees C warmer. It may have been excellent in some sense, but I think it would be very bad for the human race if we returned to those conditions. I'm not saying we will (I doubt it), just disagreeing with your apparent opinion about what it would be like if we did. How would it be bad for the human race? Even if the climate alarmists are correct(which we know they are not) and it's suddenly mad max desert out there. Humans will live just fine; we are planning to move to far more inhospitable places like mars or space. >What is it that those projections assume an 8.5% increase of per year that's actually more like 0.85%? (I haven't found anything for which that's accurate, but I haven't looked very hard because presumably you can just tell me.) The report which is linked right in the graph with the 2050 and 2100 predictions literally explains itself. They predicted 5 different levels. RCP0, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5 The predictions in the graph pretty much assume worst case scenario of 8.5. Except this report has been out for over 10 years now. We now have the actual data to say which of them is happening. The actual number? RCP 0.8 They were off by a multiple of 10. When you look at how bad RCP 0.8 is... the 2100 prediction is like 0.5celcius warmer. Virtually none of the predictions like Al Gore's underwater florida can happen by 2100. This is from their own data. They have been completely discredited. >Could you be more specific? What exactly did Gore say was going to happen by when, and where did he say it? Al Gore in the Inconvenient Truth said Florida would be underwater by 2014. http://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200612/20061205/20061205_108_350x263.jpg http://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://s... There's literally the picture of him standing infront of his prediction that Florida would be underwater. As far as I'm aware we have passed 2014 and he's wrong. Just plain wrong. >But so far as I can tell he didn't put a timescale on it, and I bet he never said or implied that it would happen within 13 years. Actually he said it on video MANY times since the film released. To be fair, he's not a scientist. He's just entirely financially dependent on pushing climate alarmism. He was reiterating what the other climate alarmists were saying. Here's a more recent quote of his: These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years. >Now, I'm pretty sure we won't in fact see a 6m sea-level rise this century, and depending on exactly what Gore said he may have been badly wrong. But not -- unless you have more detailed information to offer that says otherwise -- wrong in the specific way you say he was wrong. I actually believe we will see a sea-level rise. Not because of fossil fuels but simply population and renewable energy. When every house has solar panels and nuclear fusion is pumping out 1cent/kwh electricity. People will use more electricity and this will result in even more waste energy which will heat up the world.