What climate change is not

[Ocelot]

Schmelzer, your arse is getting so brutally kicked in this thread.
It’s just embarrassing.
You’re like some retarded whack a mole who’s too punchdrunk to duck anymore.
Actually it’s more like your whole head has been severed and doesn’t have a hole to disappear into anymore but still keeps taunting the guy with the mallet even though he only wants to kill you to put you out of your own misery.
Painful to watch!

But keep on quacking, it’s what you do.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now I am the world's only source of information about IPCC reports. My importance grows by leaps and bounds.

No, you babble is so unimportant, so obviously nonsensical, that nobody will spend some time checking if IPCC reports really support your claims. That's why your babble is ignored as the usual alarmist BS.

I have already traced your source as visible in your vocabulary and assumptions on your website

You have traced your fantasies, or your propaganda instructions, whatever.

It's dangerous for anyone who doesn't understand it - someone who, for example, uses the 66% probability max average predicted global searise from AGW ( 3mm@year) as the maximum seawater levels predicted for the Bangladesh dike and embankment system to have to handle in the next few decades. Why would anyone do that? Good question - and one you could even answer, if you ever noticed the problem.

Ask that guy who has done this. (That's easy, he exists only in your fantasy, and so he is always immediately avaible.)

You can find out who they are by simple keyword searches in the US media,

And you can find out your fellow idiots in every asylum.

Researchers have had significant knowledge of AGW and its effects since the 1950s and before, and the topic was being publicly discussed in laymen's terms long before the 1970s.

Probably in your fantasy.

In the 1960s, for example, college professors were lecturing ordinary undergraduates on AGW using evidence already twenty years old and more - including a lot of stuff you still don't know. And one finds this mentioned on thousands of familiar internet sites on all kinds of topics - such as Wiki's bio of Al Gore: You don't know this stuff, because you don't know anything about AGW research.

Neither https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore nor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore mention something more than "his interest in environmentalism began when he was a teenager". The first climate change activity mentioned is from 1976. At that time probably the whole of America had nothing else to do than to follow that 28 year old newcomer.

AGW did not begin when you, or anyone else, found out about it.

So what? I reacted to your claim

They were responses to AGW,

I though "response" is a type of conscious reaction to things one knows something about. But, ok, as I have recognized that alarmists name every victim of floods, earthquakes, cancer and whatever a victim of climate change, it is quite consistent that their behavior (all the time, and whatever it is) is nothing but a response to climate change. In my communist youth we were also responding all the time to imperialist aggression, even if we were only playing soccer.

 

[sculptor]

So when global temperatures failed to behave as models expected due to inevitable but hard to predict natural variation, they were forced to re-think – or just think? The GWPF concludes, at the risk of stating the obvious: ‘The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do, and our predictive power is less than many believe.’

Researchers from the Universities of Princeton, California, Tokyo, Kyushu and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, say the recent hiatus in global temperature increase has led to a surge in climate science.

The global effort to understand the global warming hiatus they say has led to increased understanding of some of the key metrics of global climate change such as global temperature and ice-cover.

Searching for an answer to the hiatus, they say, meant that the scientific community grappled with difficulties with these climate metrics, in particular the fact that they do not unequivocally portray the same story about global warming.

For instance, as the global surface temperature increase underwent an apparent slowdown, Antarctic sea ice expanded, and boreal summer Arctic sea ice declined rapidly, at least until 2007. Hot and cold extremes increased in northern hemisphere continents, and the Hadley circulation shifted poleward.

Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing. For some this called into question the viability of computer models of the climate and whether these changes indicated a fundamental lack in our understanding and ability to simulate radiatively forced changes, or indeed if internal climate variability alone is sufficient to explain the changes.

The researchers point out that since the hiatus was identified just over a decade ago it stimulated advances in our understanding of the multidecadal variability of these key metrics, providing insight into internal climate variability.

As well as drawing attention to biases in the temperature record it has also improved our understanding of the role of the tropical Pacific Ocean in mean global temperature.

Despite the research progress many challenges remain, especially due to the relatively short timescale of the observations.

and
"don't throw the baby out with the bath water"
Even if the data led some to grossly erroneous conclusions
keep the data as a reasonable starting point?

 

[iceaura]

No, you babble is so unimportant, so obviously nonsensical, that nobody will spend some time checking if IPCC reports really support your claims.

That is no excuse for not reading the IPCC reports.
Which is all that has to happen, for my claims to find support.
- - - -

Researchers from the Universities of Princeton, California, Tokyo, Kyushu and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, say the recent hiatus in global temperature increase has led to a surge in climate science.

And that surge found that there had been no such hiatus.
Your point?

Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.

Hence the improvement in the analysis - the expectations needed modification. That's kind of common, in science.
Your point?

The researchers point out that since the hiatus was identified just over a decade ago it stimulated advances in our understanding of the multidecadal variability of these key metrics, providing insight into internal climate variability.

And along the way discovering what had caused the illusion of a hiatus in global warming (they hadn't been paying enough attention to what was happening in the deeper ocean, and hadn't spotted a couple of problems with ocean temp measurement, and so forth).

So that glitch was more or less fixed. Do you have some issue with the fix?

Are you for once in your years-long litany of vague innuendos attempting an argument, and if so what is it?

 

[iceaura]

So what?

So your claim that the Bangladesh people were not dealing with the effects of AGW because they didn't know about AGW was stupid.

Ask that guy who has done this

That would be you, every time you typed "3mm" into a post in this thread.

Neither https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore nor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore mention something more than "his interest in environmentalism began when he was a teenager". The first climate change activity mentioned is from 1976.

As everyone except AGW denialists takes for granted, climate change "activity" (research and public explanation) did not begin with Al Gore.
It began decades before. He first encountered it at university in an undergraduate class in the late 1960s - where the professor was talking about discoveries and analyses that were already decades old. I just used him as an easy example - he's famous, and easy to look up.

So your claim that it began in the 1970s was quite silly. And it's one you could have easily checked, before embarrassing yourself like that.

I though "response" is a type of conscious reaction to things one knows something about.

And you didn't check, of course.
Yet another reminder for you: You have very bad luck when you try to think without bothering to acquire information.

The matter of interest is why all you guys - the AGW denialists, here and everywhere - have the same bad luck. You all overlook obvious fact, you all screw up when trying to use averages and other basic statistical tools, you all repeat the memes of the US Republican Party's media feed as if they were analyses of fact or items of evidence, and so forth.

 

[CptBork]

There was never any global warming hiatus in recent times and no need to create complicated new models to explain something that can be perfectly adequately explained by a combination of ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty. Sculptor and the fascists he gets his talking points from are just cherry-picking specific data endpoints from a set with wide variance in order to mask the underlying trend. See here as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Also using outdated data and models as usual, I know it's tough for some people to form new memories especially after enduring certain traumas earlier in life.

 

[sculptor]

There was never any global warming hiatus in recent times and no need to create complicated new models to explain something that can be perfectly adequately explained by a combination of ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty. Sculptor and the fascists he gets his talking points from are just cherry-picking specific data endpoints from a set with wide variance in order to mask the underlying trend. See here as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Also using outdated data and models as usual, I know it's tough for some people to form new memories especially after enduring certain traumas earlier in life.

What you do not seem to get
is that
the above posted in #543
was derived from a sales pitch by the scientists involved
seeking more grant money for more research

seriously, we do not know nearly enough yet

 

[CptBork]

What you do not seem to get
is that
the above posted in #543
was derived from a sales pitch by the scientists involved
seeking more grant money for more research

seriously, we do not know nearly enough yet

What you are missing is that at this point it doesn't really matter any more who gets paid to do what. We know that scientists who take human CO2 emissions into account are able to accurately reproduce the data, including the so-called "hiatus" seen from cherry-picking fluctuations in surface temperature. We know that scientists who ignore human CO2 emissions are not able to do so. As far as how we should proceed as a civilization, that's all we need to know until one of these two statements is no longer valid.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

will tend to have the opposite effect - by predicting futures that never occur.

climate change denial

same/same

there are many things it is _not_

the game of "what i want" / "what i don't want"

what % of the people can afford to buy that right ?

What you are missing is that at this point it doesn't really matter any more who gets paid to do what. We know that scientists who take human CO2 emissions into account are able to accurately reproduce the data, including the so-called "hiatus" seen from cherry-picking fluctuations in surface temperature. We know that scientists who ignore human CO2 emissions are not able to do so. As far as how we should proceed as a civilization, that's all we need to know until one of these two statements is no longer valid.

great post

i doubt the religious crazys care much about anything other than discrediting science

 

[Schmelzer]

So your claim that the Bangladesh people were not dealing with the effects of AGW because they didn't know about AGW was stupid.

As usual, I made no such claim. Learn to quote accurately. I have identified "response", following the translations suggested by https://www.dict.cc/?s=response (which I like, because they give usually translations for many different meanings). In this case, the translations strongly suggested a intentional answer to something known, not a simple reaction to some effect of unknown origin.

That would be you, every time you typed "3mm" into a post in this thread.

And the next lie. Mentioning the 3mm average does not make me someone

who, for example, uses the 66% probability max average predicted global searise from AGW ( 3mm@year) as the maximum seawater levels predicted for the Bangladesh dike and embankment system to have to handle in the next few decades

Lies, lies, lies, as usual.

As everyone except AGW denialists takes for granted, climate change "activity" (research and public explanation) did not begin with Al Gore.

Whatever, what I remember from my childhood is that a new ice age coming was more popular for scaremongering.

So your claim that it began in the 1970s was quite silly. And it's one you could have easily checked, before embarrassing yourself like that.

And the next lie. I made no claims when it began.

The matter of interest is why all you guys - the AGW denialists, here and everywhere - have the same bad luck.

That's simple. If propagandists distribute lies about some group, the picture is painted by the propagandists doesn't show much differences.

 

[iceaura]

And the next lie. I made no claims when it began.

Yes, you did.
You said that "nobody knew" about AGW in the 1970s.

Whatever, what I remember from my childhood is that a new ice age coming was more popular for scaremongering.

Your gullibility in the face of rightwing media feeds is well established - that you have allowed it to tell you what you remember from your childhood is hardly a surprise.

Lies, lies, lies, as usual.

Just handing your own posts back to you. They do look strange, but that's not my fault.

That's simple. If propagandists distribute lies about some group, the picture is painted by the propagandists doesn't show much differences.

The topic was your posting, not the findings of all the AGW researchers. Reading comprehension - always a problem with you guys, but whether as a cause or an effect is pretty much impossible to determine from the postings here.
That doesn't explain your posting any better than the reality of a common body of facts does.

And the next lie. Mentioning the 3mm average does not make me someone

Changing the subject so as to attack personally - the wingnut two-stepper completes one cycle of topic avoidance.
Nobody said it did.
This is what was said: In every post of yours here that includes that typed term "3mm" you are posting as that someone.
And that is a simple fact - you can verify it for yourself, by reviewing your posts in this thread.
Coincidence? Design? Tactic? Nobody knows.

It didn't make you anything - it identified you, each and every time you used the term in this thread.
Just as this identifies its poster:

was derived from a sales pitch by the scientists involved
seeking more grant money for more research

There is only one source for that propaganda meme.
The extraordinarily childlike naivety with which you guys suck in the various feeds from Bullshit Mountain threatens to invoke Occam's Razor at every new display.

That is to note: The ignorance and stupidity explanation is getting more and more complicated, less and less likely.
How are you guys maintaining the necessary level of ignorance and stupidity, in the face of all evidence and every new event?

AGW denial is running short of innocent explanations.

 

[CptBork]

Iceaura you're missing the obvious answers. If Schmelzer's solutions fall short, we'll just build a Dyson Sphere around the sun and control its output that way. Stop taking money from Amnesty International to promote your liberal excrement.

 

[billvon]

same/same

Overestimating the effects of climate change is the same as denying it? What a strange conclusion.

 

[billvon]

So when global temperatures failed to behave as models expected due to inevitable but hard to predict natural variation, they were forced to re-think – or just think? The GWPF concludes, at the risk of stating the obvious: ‘The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do, and our predictive power is less than many believe.’

You sound like a smoker trying to justify his smoking by saying "no one really knows if it's bad for you or not."

 

[Schmelzer]

Iceaura writes the usual BS, a lot of lies about me, zero interesting information. Not really worth to answer that nonsense.

 

[sculptor]

You sound like a smoker trying to justify his smoking by saying "no one really knows if it's bad for you or not."

or
I am advocating for more funding for more research into climate science.
IPCC
You know what that is an acronym for?
Just based on their title, do you not see an agenda?

Would you not welcome more real science into this highly politicized topic?

 

[billvon]

or
I am advocating for more funding for more research into climate science.
IPCC
You know what that is an acronym for?
Just based on their title, do you not see an agenda?

Absolutely. They study climate change. Just like the APA, the AMA, the FAA, the WHO, the NRA, the TMRC, USPA - all organizations with a specific purpose.

Would you not welcome more real science into this highly politicized topic?

You reject all real science. You don't accept it unless it tells you exactly what you want to hear. If it does, you accept it. If it doesn't, you whatabout. We've seen you do this here for years.

 

[CptBork]

or
I am advocating for more funding for more research into climate science.
IPCC
You know what that is an acronym for?
Just based on their title, do you not see an agenda?

Would you not welcome more real science into this highly politicized topic?

This is an excellent idea. We should implement a carbon tax and then use it to fund further research to continue checking and verifying what virtually all the science is now solidly indicating. Also Donald Trump should reverse all of his environmental monitoring cuts and increase spending instead.

 

[iceaura]

Would you not welcome more real science into this highly politicized topic?

Absolutely.
I have even made a variety of suggestions for how we could obtain it, and at no extra cost to its beneficiaries (the citizenry of the nations of the world): take the Republican Party of the US out of power, imprison those of its leadership and financial supporters who have committed crimes, and redistribute the money they embezzled from the poor and parked in the bank accounts of the rich to the researchers and analysts and policy advisors needed by legitimate government.

 

[Seattle]

Iceaura writes the usual BS, a lot of lies about me, zero interesting information. Not really worth to answer that nonsense.

Iceaura is a bitter person but it's still worth addressing any points raised.