5 ms·

I don't think you understand what you are arguing. Yes, the average temperature of earth has chaged vastly over its history, giving different levels of habitab

by dmbche 4y ago

I don't think you understand what you are arguing. Yes, the average temperature of earth has chaged vastly over its history, giving different levels of habitability. At this time, we're in a really good spot for habitability, and we are seeing that we are slipping out of it. There is evidence that some of the temperature change could very well be human made, and thus easy to stop (compared to, say, the emissions of volcanoes). For some reason you argue that nothing should be done, because nothing was done in past massive climate changes, which resolved in mass extinctions. Is anything I'm saying wrong?

nightski 4y ago
Easy to stop? Lol it's down right impossible and all this discussion is colossal waste of time. Humans are never going to coordinate globally to do this.
- dmbche 4y ago
  I'm not wasting a lot of time on this, maybe a couple hours a month in looking at papers? I don't think it's a waste of time. Humans don't need to coordonate globally to slow down emissions. I'm sure you are aware of what motivated small groups of people can do. I'm not talking changing laws or protesting, but sabotage and disobedience in general are very efficient and need little coordination.
revelio 4y ago
Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evidence.
- dmbche 4y ago
  I mean have you looked at the charts showing the little ice age and the warm medieval period? The variation of temperature is orders of magnitude different to what we are experiencing now - I don't think that it's very relevant, is it? While climate hasn't been "stable" as in "hasn't changed", it has remained in a very narrow band of t°, of which we are slipping out of it at a much faster rate than all your examples. I'd argue it's quite clear we are on the way to an extinction class climate change, are you saying we are not? The hockey stick graph is pretty alarming to me.
  - revelio 4y ago
    Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann lawsuit, the work McIntyre did on showing how these graphs were manufactured etc. After it was shown how Mann did it the NAS investigated and hockey sticks vanished from IPCC reports for around 15 years. Then one snuck back in to the latest report but only in the summary! The graph doesn't appear in the actual scientific review part at all! That's the state the IPCC has degraded to: the summaries for policymakers are completely different to the actual content for scientists and introduce new claims unsupported by the cited research. The graph is still wrong and the techniques that lead to them are blatantly fraudulent (lots of cherry picking, truncating, splicing, even tipping raw data upside down to make it go up instead of down, really horrific stuff).
    - dmbche 4y ago
      I'm sorry, you're spewing nonsense. For anyone having read this far: - "the mann lawsuit" is climategate, where some people found a single sentence out of context that sounded off out of years of emails. Mann sued the people that accused him of skewing the facts, and won a defamation suit. - while you write about things around the hockey stick graph, you dance around describing what they show. You can't "manufacture" a global rise in average t° of over 1°C. - I'm not even certain you are a real human being! Why argue all this, when you can just look at the graph?
      - revelio 4y ago
        That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m... Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. The case was about whether Mann was engaged in knowing scientific fraud when he made his false hockey stick graph. Tim Ball said he did, and Mann sued, but in the end he preferred to lose the case rather than reveal his data and working, which says a lot: In the pre-trial Discovery Process, the parties must give up key evidence in a reasonable fashion, that proves or disproves the Claim. Dr. Mann lost his case because he abused Discovery by refusing to honor the “concessions” he made to Ball in 2018 to finally show in open court his R2 regression numbers (Mann’s math ‘working out’) for his graph (see ‘update’ at foot of article).
- dmbche 4y ago
  Like all the variations you mentionned are less than 0.5° average, while we are already over 1° now. I think it's almost disengenuous to use them to say that the present warming is nothing to be worried of.
  - revelio 4y ago
    No, the changes were much larger than that, but recall from the climategate emails that they spent a lot of time trying to find ways to cover up the data around that. Look into the history of "hockey stick" graphs to see just how far they go. Historical evidence from outside their field shows there must have been changes of many degrees in the relatively recent past, e.g. bison fossils at altitudes indicating 5-6 degrees warmer than today with no runaway feedback loops and obviously, subsequent cooling.
    - dmbche 4y ago
      How large were they? With a source please, you say a lot of garbage that I'd like not to have to sift through. Every source I see shows clearly that both your events were much less than 1°. Bison fossils? What about ree rings and ice core samples? How are bones a possible indiction of anything? Climate gate had a single sentence that seemed off to someone who has never done statistical analysis, if taken out of contexy.
      - revelio 4y ago
        ClimateGate had numerous emails that in context showed serious malfeasance. They were literally saying they were going to exclude any scientific work that disagreed with them "even if they had to redefine the peer reviewed literature to do so". It certainly wasn't a single sentence. Try reading them yourself and see! Re: fossils. Example: http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Schaer_Wisent_published.pdf http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch... But there are other lines of evidence that work in similar ways. They are based on the discovery and dating of fossils at altitudes where that form of life can't exist today because it's too cold, and then from that calculate how warm it must have been at the time (much warmer than today, even in the relatively recent past). Re: tree rings/ice cores. These are called proxy reconstructions and they routinely conflict with each other, meaning they can't really be temperature proxies. Nonetheless, PCs are regularly discarded in a form of industrial scale cherry picking in order to create a hockey stick. An example of the problem is here, where proxies are randomly selected and plotted showing how almost none of them show any kind of hockey stick: https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...

by dmbche 4y ago

nightski 4y ago

Easy to stop? Lol it's down right impossible and all this discussion is colossal waste of time. Humans are never going to coordinate globally to do this.

dmbche 4y ago
I'm not wasting a lot of time on this, maybe a couple hours a month in looking at papers? I don't think it's a waste of time. Humans don't need to coordonate globally to slow down emissions. I'm sure you are aware of what motivated small groups of people can do. I'm not talking changing laws or protesting, but sabotage and disobedience in general are very efficient and need little coordination.

revelio 4y ago

Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evidence.

dmbche 4y ago
I mean have you looked at the charts showing the little ice age and the warm medieval period? The variation of temperature is orders of magnitude different to what we are experiencing now - I don't think that it's very relevant, is it? While climate hasn't been "stable" as in "hasn't changed", it has remained in a very narrow band of t°, of which we are slipping out of it at a much faster rate than all your examples. I'd argue it's quite clear we are on the way to an extinction class climate change, are you saying we are not? The hockey stick graph is pretty alarming to me.
- revelio 4y ago
  Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann lawsuit, the work McIntyre did on showing how these graphs were manufactured etc. After it was shown how Mann did it the NAS investigated and hockey sticks vanished from IPCC reports for around 15 years. Then one snuck back in to the latest report but only in the summary! The graph doesn't appear in the actual scientific review part at all! That's the state the IPCC has degraded to: the summaries for policymakers are completely different to the actual content for scientists and introduce new claims unsupported by the cited research. The graph is still wrong and the techniques that lead to them are blatantly fraudulent (lots of cherry picking, truncating, splicing, even tipping raw data upside down to make it go up instead of down, really horrific stuff).
  - dmbche 4y ago
    I'm sorry, you're spewing nonsense. For anyone having read this far: - "the mann lawsuit" is climategate, where some people found a single sentence out of context that sounded off out of years of emails. Mann sued the people that accused him of skewing the facts, and won a defamation suit. - while you write about things around the hockey stick graph, you dance around describing what they show. You can't "manufacture" a global rise in average t° of over 1°C. - I'm not even certain you are a real human being! Why argue all this, when you can just look at the graph?
    - revelio 4y ago
      That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m... Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. The case was about whether Mann was engaged in knowing scientific fraud when he made his false hockey stick graph. Tim Ball said he did, and Mann sued, but in the end he preferred to lose the case rather than reveal his data and working, which says a lot: In the pre-trial Discovery Process, the parties must give up key evidence in a reasonable fashion, that proves or disproves the Claim. Dr. Mann lost his case because he abused Discovery by refusing to honor the “concessions” he made to Ball in 2018 to finally show in open court his R2 regression numbers (Mann’s math ‘working out’) for his graph (see ‘update’ at foot of article).
dmbche 4y ago
Like all the variations you mentionned are less than 0.5° average, while we are already over 1° now. I think it's almost disengenuous to use them to say that the present warming is nothing to be worried of.
- revelio 4y ago
  No, the changes were much larger than that, but recall from the climategate emails that they spent a lot of time trying to find ways to cover up the data around that. Look into the history of "hockey stick" graphs to see just how far they go. Historical evidence from outside their field shows there must have been changes of many degrees in the relatively recent past, e.g. bison fossils at altitudes indicating 5-6 degrees warmer than today with no runaway feedback loops and obviously, subsequent cooling.
  - dmbche 4y ago
    How large were they? With a source please, you say a lot of garbage that I'd like not to have to sift through. Every source I see shows clearly that both your events were much less than 1°. Bison fossils? What about ree rings and ice core samples? How are bones a possible indiction of anything? Climate gate had a single sentence that seemed off to someone who has never done statistical analysis, if taken out of contexy.
    - revelio 4y ago
      ClimateGate had numerous emails that in context showed serious malfeasance. They were literally saying they were going to exclude any scientific work that disagreed with them "even if they had to redefine the peer reviewed literature to do so". It certainly wasn't a single sentence. Try reading them yourself and see! Re: fossils. Example: http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Schaer_Wisent_published.pdf http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch... But there are other lines of evidence that work in similar ways. They are based on the discovery and dating of fossils at altitudes where that form of life can't exist today because it's too cold, and then from that calculate how warm it must have been at the time (much warmer than today, even in the relatively recent past). Re: tree rings/ice cores. These are called proxy reconstructions and they routinely conflict with each other, meaning they can't really be temperature proxies. Nonetheless, PCs are regularly discarded in a form of industrial scale cherry picking in order to create a hockey stick. An example of the problem is here, where proxies are randomly selected and plotted showing how almost none of them show any kind of hockey stick: https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...