User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: Is it too late to prevent the meltdown of West Antarctica?

  1. #51
    Points: 80,720, Level: 69
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,730
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    countryboy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    28222
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    28,649
    Points
    80,720
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    10,475
    Thanked 21,459x in 13,509 Posts
    Mentioned
    230 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The hockey stick wasn't a modeling problem. It was using statistics to lie. Mann cherry picked the date range for his graph to make warming seem abnormal. Had he extended it into the Medieval Warming Period there would be no hockey stick.

    A common leftist tactic. Choose a time period which corresponds to your agenda, while leaving out pertinent facts. They do this with everything, not just climate change.
    Cutesy Time is OVER

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to countryboy For This Useful Post:

    Collateral Damage (12-23-2021),Peter1469 (12-23-2021)

  3. #52
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But computer modelling does pose problems. The results are only as good as the data inputs. Miss something, even if it is seemingly insignificant, and your results are useless.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Collateral Damage (12-23-2021)

  5. #53
    Points: 21,525, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6810
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,046
    Points
    21,525
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,705
    Thanked 6,800x in 4,160 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Get your information from mainstream climate science that has been corroborated by many peer-reviewed articles.

    Many studies attribute around 100% of the warming since 1950 to humans. Natural, or non-human caused changes, account for a small amount of cooling or possibly a tiny amount of warming.

    Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming (skepticalscience.com)



    The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-75 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been zero or slightly in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.

    The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, dark blue), and Gillett et al. 2021 (G21, yellow). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
    So the primary question I asked, what temperature is the earth supposed to be, remains unanswered, yet we are supposedly at some sort of tipping point, which beyond there is 'no hope' according to some.

    Sorry, there are gaping holes in not only the 'settled science', but the hole in the statement in and of itself.

    While I believe that humans are the custodians of this planet, and it behooves us to leave as little impact as possible, mandating, demanding, taxing and belittling those who do not comply is counterproductive, to put it politely.

    So, bottom line, pontificate as you will. Your 'panic' is your problem, not mine.
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Collateral Damage For This Useful Post:

    Ethereal (12-23-2021),Peter1469 (12-23-2021)

  7. #54
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Collateral Damage View Post
    So the primary question I asked, what temperature is the earth supposed to be, remains unanswered, yet we are supposedly at some sort of tipping point, which beyond there is 'no hope' according to some.

    Sorry, there are gaping holes in not only the 'settled science', but the hole in the statement in and of itself.

    While I believe that humans are the custodians of this planet, and it behooves us to leave as little impact as possible, mandating, demanding, taxing and belittling those who do not comply is counterproductive, to put it politely.

    So, bottom line, pontificate as you will. Your 'panic' is your problem, not mine.
    Your question, "What is the temperature of the earth supposed to be?", is open to interpretation. I interpret things literally and a literal interpretation is that the earth is always at the temperature it is supposed to be at. The desirable global mean temperature of the Earth's surface (I think this is what you intended to mean) would be something that would give us stable sea levels and not flood low-lying cities and any areas where large numbers of people live. That would be something around 0.5 degrees Celsius below where we are now or a little lower than that. There is some amount of warming already in the pipeline and some amount of sea level rise left in the pipeline, about 0.5 degrees C. of warming is an educated guess and 3 feet of sea level rise over the next 200 years.

    The science is not settled but it is well understood that humans have caused around 100% of the warming since 1970 (about 0.9 degrees C) and that there is around another 0.5 degrees C. of warming that will occur once the Earth's surface achieves thermal equilibrium. It is well understood that if we continue on the business as usual path that future generations will face gobal catastrophe. Even if all nations live up to the Paris Accord the world will face a climate catastrophe sometime near the end of this century.

    What is so bad about a carbon tax or laws that would prevent a climate catastrophe? We have all kinds of laws governing the use of pesticides, harmful chemicals, food additives, and laws regulating the pharmaceutical and food industry.

    I am not panicking. I am trying to inform people. I won't live long enough to be greatly affected by climate change. This forum isn't going to have any impact on the world, it is just a place for people to discuss issues, to learn, or to make social contacts and friendships.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 12-23-2021 at 02:37 PM.

  8. #55
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Ice ages come in cycles. We are between ice ages currently. You missed this?


    You seem to be backpedaling. Climate scientists have been warning of catastrophe in the short term. Not at the end of the century and beyond. Why did you move the goal posts?

    Here is an example- this sign was removed from Glacier National Park:

    Climate scientists have not been predicting catastrophe in the short time, certainly not the IPCC or any climate science articles that I have read over the past 20 years.
    You cherry pick 1 thing that some scientists got wrong that is entirely insignificant and then draw a conclusion from that. Nearly all glaciers are melting and that melting
    is generally accelerating just as expected.

  9. #56
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The hockey stick wasn't a modeling problem. It was using statistics to lie. Mann cherry picked the date range for his graph to make warming seem abnormal. Had he extended it into the Medieval Warming Period there would be no hockey stick.

    Where did these graphs come from. They didn't come from any respectable scientific source. Mann's hockey stick graph has held up well and the graph presented in the latest IPCC report shown on post# 43 is indicates that the current climate is much hotter than at anytime over the past 2000 years.

  10. #57
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Where did these graphs come from. They didn't come from any respectable scientific source. Mann's hockey stick graph has held up well and the graph presented in the latest IPCC report shown on post# 43 is indicates that the current climate is much hotter than at anytime over the past 2000 years.
    Much hotter? Your full of $#@!.

    What happens to your peace of mind when the politicians do nothing?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. #58
    Points: 21,525, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6810
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,046
    Points
    21,525
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,705
    Thanked 6,800x in 4,160 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Your question, "What is the temperature of the earth supposed to be?", is open to interpretation. I interpret things literally and a literal interpretation is that the earth is always at the temperature it is supposed to be at. The desirable global mean temperature of the Earth's surface (I think this is what you intended to mean) would be something that would give us stable sea levels and not flood low-lying cities and any areas where large numbers of people live. That would be something around 0.5 degrees Celsius below where we are now or a little lower than that. There is some amount of warming already in the pipeline and some amount of sea level rise left in the pipeline, about 0.5 degrees C. of warming is an educated guess and 3 feet of sea level rise over the next 200 years.

    The science is not settled but it is well understood that humans have caused around 100% of the warming since 1970 (about 0.9 degrees C) and that there is around another 0.5 degrees C. of warming that will occur once the Earth's surface achieves thermal equilibrium. It is well understood that if we continue on the business as usual path that future generations will face gobal catastrophe. Even if all nations live up to the Paris Accord the world will face a climate catastrophe sometime near the end of this century.
    What is so bad about a carbon tax or laws that would prevent a climate catastrophe? We have all kinds of laws governing the use of pesticides, harmful chemicals, food additives, and laws regulating the pharmaceutical and food industry.

    I am not panicking. I am trying to inform people. I won't live long enough to be greatly affected by climate change. This forum isn't going to have any impact on the world, it is just a place for people to discuss issues, to learn, or to make social contacts and friendships.
    I'll give you points for trying to answer the question. The real answer is, we don't know. The idea that taxing people will somehow change a natural cycle is a bit delusional, to be honest. And to claim that any 'warming' since the 1970s is 100% man made is denying that the natural cycles exist.

    As to flooding along coasts, is it not man's folly that they built there? Why should all people be taxed to find away for people who made poor geographical decisions to be protected?

    Considering there is melt off in some areas, but ice flow gains in others, the overall impact is nothing as the models predicted... because every day, the things that can effect the frost/defrost at the polar caps change. I'm sure the number of aircraft used to gather for the most recent climate summit didn't have an effect whatsoever, hmmmm?
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Collateral Damage For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-23-2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts