nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What's your plans for your future hellscape?

Overheal

So the science is in and we've had a score of record breaking high temps year after year since the turn of the century. I was shopping in Aigusta GA today and the heat was a god awful 38 C (converted for you hipster Irish: it was really 100 F). The AC in the car barely handled it. The thing actually came alive AFTER we took the keys out of it, like the radiator was still trying to cool it down (some X-files type ****) (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Discussion-c2404_ds542696) basically the car was going nuclear and was trying to save itself. The house AC couldn't even hold its set point at 76F, it crept up to 79 during the day and never stopped running.

Now it's got me thinking about where we are headed: are our kids going to live in some hellscape where direct sun exposure means guaranteed sun rash/burn. Maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd because being relatively up to the north Ireland doesn't get a ton of heat, but where will the madness end, is it just the opposite of an Ice Age where everything gets hot af? I don't have clothes for this. Do I set up home in a cave or something?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jester77

A proper energy efficient house is the way to go. Mine keeps a fairly constant temp. between 22-26 all year around with very little intervention to raise or lower the temps in either summer or winter.

Akrasia

topper75 wrote: »

Don't ever talk to end-of-days religious cult leaders then. They'll REALLY scare you. Four horsemen apparently. And not nice horses either.

I hear lots of talk about data this and model the other. But nobody has ever brought any correct fulfilled prediction to my notice.

Until then, climatology is just a joke. Joke is probably on me though as my tax euros are handed over to them to fund their frolics.

I hereby officially bring just one piece of the publicly available evidence that climate model predictions have been worryingly accurate to your notice

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

Grayson

topper75 wrote: »

Don't ever talk to end-of-days religious cult leaders then. They'll REALLY scare you. Four horsemen apparently. And not nice horses either.

I hear lots of talk about data this and model the other. But nobody has ever brought any correct fulfilled prediction to my notice.

Until then, climatology is just a joke. Joke is probably on me though as my tax euros are handed over to them to fund their frolics.

I've read a lot of the reports on the fallout from global warming. It's not going to be pretty. Take India and China. Most of their internal water supply comes from rivers and lakes which are fed by spring runoff from the Himalayas. With climate change the glaciers that feed these are going to disappear. The same goes for central Europe.

The pentagon have taken it so seriously that they consider climate change to be the biggest threat to world peace. All their geopolitical scenarios for the next 70 years heavily involve it.

Let me give you a simple example of how it will pan out. Thanks to an old treaty all the water of the nile belongs to Egypt. They need it too and have said they will aggressively defend their right to it. The countries up river are complaining because they need it for irrigatiion. Because of global warming they'll need it more and more. In preparation both the countries upstream and egypt have started upgrading their military's in preparation for a future war. It might take another 20 years but war will break out.

Similar conflicts will arise around the world. There will be mass migrations to countries that have access to water as the ones that don't become unsustainable. That's besides the rising sea levels which will displace possibly billions of people around the world.

Our children are going to live in a world that is far less stable than the one we live in.

Dr Crayfish

Well, we had our one or two weeks of sun earlier this month, reaching highs of 24c or something in Dublin. It was really nice. Back to normal now, cold, highs of 13c today I think, miserable, wet, damp.
So if you don't mind sending over 10 or 15c from Atlanta GA or wherever you are, it'll even things out

kneemos

Two Tone wrote: »

Oh come on - they offered reports that evidence something which you are sceptical about, surely that is a decent, reasonable tactic. And your response was just to sneer at them.

I don't have any vested interest in the topic but I know that if someone is sceptical of/in denial about something and someone else offers them evidence to the contrary, the grown-up thing to do would be to take this on board instead of sticking their fingers in their ears because it doesn't suit them to acknowledge.

If they were reports that suited your argument would you say they're gibberish that nobody wants to read, and that they need to be explained by the poster (no they don't - just read the reports themselves like any report ) and that they probably contain biased data?

Why couldn't he just say what's in the report?
Oooh look at this report with numbers on it.Arsed if I'm spending time looking when he couldn't explain in a sentence or two to give the gist.

Samaris

kneemos wrote: »

Who wants to read that gibberish.
Trying to impress with your reports won't work unless you can explain what they say I'm afraid . Probably contain biased data anyway.

Kneemos, since I have tried before to debate the topic with you and you have so far displayed no evidence of an ability to think critically on the topic and blindly reject any form of scientific data in favour of totally-unbiased-because-I-say-so political thinktanks primarily funded by oil companies and American business...I don't think I'll bother debating it with you again.

I did actually explain as simply as possible what they said last time too. That you do not recall this (or are deliberately misremembering) is hardly my fault. Go back to the last thread (in which you took full part) and reread it perhaps.

RobertKK

Turn the heating off.

topper75

Akrasia wrote: »

I hereby officially bring just one piece of the publicly available evidence that climate model predictions have been worryingly accurate to your notice

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

They predicted an upward trend for a narrow time period. Hardly the basis on which you can determine the date of the rapture is it? Paddy Power won't be interested.

Even those Maya calendar nuts put up their specific date to give them their due.

I'm talking about predicting a measurement or event in the future and that value or event materialising in actual fact. Then we can talk about "the science being in".

Samaris

topper75 wrote: »

They predicted an upward trend for a narrow time period. Hardly the basis on which you can determine the date of the rapture is it? Paddy Power won't be interested.

Even those Maya calendar nuts put up their specific date to give them their due.

I'm talking about predicting a measurement or event in the future and that value or event materialising in actual fact. Then we can talk about "the science being in".

If you are ever given a specific date, be suspicious of it. Trends are how it works, we cannot and -do not- just pick one date or one event and call it proof of anything, because it is not. It's a trend over time of more extreme events for instance, or increased temperatures over a long period of time. That's what the trend stuff is about.

kneemos

Samaris wrote: »

Kneemos, since I have tried before to debate the topic with you and you have so far displayed no evidence of an ability to think critically on the topic and blindly reject any form of scientific data in favour of totally-unbiased-because-I-say-so political thinktanks primarily funded by oil companies and American business...I don't think I'll bother debating it with you again.

I did actually explain as simply as possible what they said last time too. That you do not recall this (or are deliberately misremembering) is hardly my fault. Go back to the last thread (in which you took full part) and reread it perhaps.

Well it's obviously very convincing,whatever it is.

topper75

I am not just suspicious of dates - but trends too. If gold prices have dropped each successive day for the past week, you can't just assert like some wild-eyed Pentecostal preacher talking about the end of days that they will be worth just 2 cents each next year.

If there is science, then definite outcomes can be predicted. There aren't so we don't have science; rather we have a series of measurements and some jumping to conclusions.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Why couldn't he just say what's in the report?
Oooh look at this report with numbers on it.Arsed if I'm spending time looking when he couldn't explain in a sentence or two to give the gist.

This is almost the definition of wilful ignorance

You claim there isn't any good evidence for global warming, when someone tells you where to find the evidence, you refuse to read it, instead demanding that someone else summarise it for you in a few short sentences so you can then dismiss the summary as not convincing because there isn't enough evidence.

The IPCC AR4 document has summary documents for every chapter that neatly breaks down their findings into bitesized chunks for the media and policy makers.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html

If you can't get your head around this, then you should excuse yourself from the debate as you're not qualified to speak on it.

Akrasia

topper75 wrote: »

They predicted an upward trend for a narrow time period. Hardly the basis on which you can determine the date of the rapture is it? Paddy Power won't be interested.

Even those Maya calendar nuts put up their specific date to give them their due.

I'm talking about predicting a measurement or event in the future and that value or event materialising in actual fact. Then we can talk about "the science being in".

They predicted an upward trend and this is what happened.

The models have been tested with historical data, and their predictions are tested against actual data as the climate changes. When the future climate matches the model predictions, the this is confirmation that the models are accurate.

You said nobody has brought 'Correct fulfilled prediction to my notice'

That article shows the models correctly predicting the rise in temperatures.

What more do you expect?

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

This is almost the definition of wilful ignorance

You claim there isn't any good evidence for global warming, when someone tells you where to find the evidence, you refuse to read it, instead demanding that someone else summarise it for you in a few short sentences so you can then dismiss the summary as not convincing because there isn't enough evidence.

The IPCC AR4 document has summary documents for every chapter that neatly breaks down their findings into bitesized chunks for the media and policy makers.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html

If you can't get your head around this, then you should excuse yourself from the debate as you're not qualified to speak on it.

No use preaching to the converted.

topper75

Akrasia wrote: »

They predicted an upward trend and this is what happened.

The models have been tested with historical data, and their predictions are tested against actual data as the climate changes. When the future climate matches the model predictions, the this is confirmation that the models are accurate.

You said nobody has brought 'Correct fulfilled prediction to my notice'

That article shows the models correctly predicting the rise in temperatures.

What more do you expect?

I expect absolute values of sea levels in cm and air temperatures in degrees at future dates. I don't know of any successful predictions by climatologists to date.

Saying that "When the future climate matches the model predictions, then this is confirmation that the models are accurate" is no more true than saying a famine in Africa is confirmation that we are in the end of days as per the Book of Revelations.

Samaris

topper75 wrote: »

I expect absolute values of sea levels in cm and air temperatures in degrees at future dates. I don't know of any successful predictions by climatologists to date.

Saying that "When the future climate matches the model predictions, then this is confirmation that the models are accurate" is no more true than saying a famine in Africa is confirmation that we are in the end of days as per the Book of Revelations.

Then you expect the impossible, in almost any branch of science. What you are asking for akin to someone demanding that when the cancer shows in this cell here, you'll believe it, and ignoring the weight of evidence that does not match your very specific want.

I cannot tell you that on October 24th, 2018, there will have been a rise of precisely 10.03491cm since 1900. I can tell you that there has been a rise of between 4-8 inches over the past century, and in the past twenty years, the rate of rise has been double that of the eighty years preceding, working on averages. It is an incredibly complex machine you're talking about, and some checks and balances work against each other, some push more to one direction. Large scale teleconnections give rise to unexpected effects in certain places - ENSO is the most famous. And right at the moment, we're seeing a pattern of unusual El Ninos ("Modoki") which give the opposite to expected effect in certain places (Australia for one, and parts of Europe).

Thing is, this HAS been being predicted. Oh, there's been hiccups and revisions, of course there has. We're not psychics, we're scientists! When something is definately happening, we don't say "hm, it doesn't fit the model, it doesn't exist", we say "hm, it doesn't fit the model, why doesn't it fit the model? What has not been accounted for?" and go back to the books and the measurements and the instruments and the physics and chemistry. That is how it works.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Well it's obviously very convincing,whatever it is.

There are people who don't find the evidence for germ theory convincing. This says a lot More about the critical thinking skills of these people than it does about germ theory

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

There are people who don't find the evidence for germ theory convincing. This says a lot More about the critical thinking skills of these people than it does about germ theory

Have no problem with climate change,it's forever changing.The predictions of the end of humanity the unforgiving certainty of being right and shutting down scientists who have an opposing opinion are what I have the issue with.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Have no problem with climate change,it's forever changing.The predictions of the end of humanity the unforgiving certainty of being right and shutting down scientists who have an opposing opinion are what I have the issue with.

Scientists don't deal in opinion, they deal with evidence and data. And all the data points towards the greenhouse effect driving climate change

Grayson

topper75 wrote: »

I expect absolute values of sea levels in cm and air temperatures in degrees at future dates. I don't know of any successful predictions by climatologists to date.

Saying that "When the future climate matches the model predictions, then this is confirmation that the models are accurate" is no more true than saying a famine in Africa is confirmation that we are in the end of days as per the Book of Revelations.

If I roll a dice 10,000 time and 50% of the time it comes up on 6 then I can say that it's pretty certain it's a dodgy dice. If I roll it another 10,000 times and the results are the same I can be very certain. I can examine the dice and prove that it is indeed weighted and will always have a bias for the 6. I can roll it again and get a six. Now did I get the six because it's weighted or would it have happened anyway? There's no way of knowing.

Now with climate change we will see an increase in violent weather patterns. We will see more hurricanes. Does that mean that a particular hurricane was caused by climate change? Who knows. What we do know is that there are more occurring than normal. We know that there will be more again in the future. We can then examine the weather patterns to see what is causing these extra hurricanes and use that information to predict that there will be more again.

That's science and math. What you want is someone to take that weighted dice and be able to tell you every time what the next roll will be. That's not possible. As someone mentioned that's psychics.

FortySeven

Grayson wrote: »

If I roll a dice 10,000 time and 50% of the time it comes up on 6 then I can say that it's pretty certain it's a dodgy dice. If I roll it another 10,000 times and the results are the same I can be very certain. I can examine the dice and prove that it is indeed weighted and will always have a bias for the 6. I can roll it again and get a six. Now did I get the six because it's weighted or would it have happened anyway? There's no way of knowing.

Now with climate change we will see an increase in violent weather patterns. We will see more hurricanes. Does that mean that a particular hurricane was caused by climate change? Who knows. What we do know is that there are more occurring than normal. We know that there will be more again in the future. We can then examine the weather patterns to see what is causing these extra hurricanes and use that information to predict that there will be more again.

That's science and math. What you want is someone to take that weighted dice and be able to tell you every time what the next roll will be. That's not possible. As someone mentioned that's psychics.

How long is the timeline of the data used to create these models? How accurate is the historical data?

We only got an accurate thermometer from farenheit 292 years ago. The world is at least 10 times that old if you believe in God. (Bit older if you believe in science granted.)

I'm on neither side of the debate but the one thing I know is that it never works out the way we predict, nothing so complex ever could. In that case, you're wrong, he's wrong and I get a biscuit or something..

Akrasia

Grayson wrote: »

If I roll a dice 10,000 time and 50% of the time it comes up on 6 then I can say that it's pretty certain it's a dodgy dice. If I roll it another 10,000 times and the results are the same I can be very certain. I can examine the dice and prove that it is indeed weighted and will always have a bias for the 6. I can roll it again and get a six. Now did I get the six because it's weighted or would it have happened anyway? There's no way of knowing.

Now with climate change we will see an increase in violent weather patterns. We will see more hurricanes. Does that mean that a particular hurricane was caused by climate change? Who knows. What we do know is that there are more occurring than normal. We know that there will be more again in the future. We can then examine the weather patterns to see what is causing these extra hurricanes and use that information to predict that there will be more again.

That's science and math. What you want is someone to take that weighted dice and be able to tell you every time what the next roll will be. That's not possible. As someone mentioned that's psychics.

The way weather works, is that it's a chaotic system where small inputs can have disproportionate effects down the line (the butterfly effect)

Without climate change we can say 100% that the weather we are facing today would not happen without climate change. Different weather would happen.
Would that weather be on average cooler and less energetic?
Yes.
Would there be individual weather events that are high impact?
Yes.
Would there be fewer of these events without climate change?
Yes.

Anyone with any integrity must now acknowledge that the global climate is shifting to a new state. Denialists will still deny the physics of the greenhouse effect, but that's because they're ignorant of the science, or have vested interests or pre-existing ideological bias that doesn't like the implications if the greenhouse effect is the cause of the current manifest global warming.

(biases against government intervention in economics, for example, leads them to deny any crisis that requires global international intergovernmental action)

Akrasia

FortySeven wrote: »

How long is the timeline of the data used to create these models? How accurate is the historical data?

We only got an accurate thermometer from farenheit 292 years ago. The world is at least 10 times that old if you believe in God. (Bit older if you believe in science granted.)

I'm on neither side of the debate but the one thing I know is that it never works out the way we predict, nothing so complex ever could. In that case, you're wrong, he's wrong and I get a biscuit or something..

There's more ways to measure temperature than thermometers

When was the last person to jam a thermometer into the surface of the sun? But we know the surface temperature is about 5500 degrees c because we can measure the wavelengths of light emitted by the various elements that make up the sun using a spectrograph

We can measure temperatures in earth's past using proxy data from the biosphere. If, for example, we know that certain kinds of tree grow faster at a certain temperature, and certain types of flower only pollinate at a certain temperature, then we can use this data to collect pollen samples from the soil and tree rings to derive the temperature in the region at that time.

Soil and ice core samples also contain different concentrations of oxygen isotopes that are measurements of how warm the air was at that time.

Water temperature proxies are stored in the calcite shells of plankton and other micro organisms. They can be analysed for chemical signatures and isotopes that indicate the water temperature at the time they were formed.

The proxy temperature records are less reliable and precise than direct measurements but we can get enough information to conclude that the current warming events are happening faster than natural processes allow, and analysis shows that we were on a 2 thousand year cooling trend until rapidly accelerating warming started in the 19th century due to increases in CO2 concentrations

This is a very robust scientific finding and it has been replicated in at least 5 large scale and independent studies using different data sources and proxies.

The notorious hockey stick graph speaks for itself (of which there are numerous independently generated versions all telling the same story). Slow, stable temperature changes until the industrial revolution followed by a rapid change.

kneemos

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjFr_C25czNAhXMJ8AKHWQpCI8QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatedepot.com%2F2015%2F11%2F19%2Fscientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path%2F&usg=AFQjCNFHg0D_ax9FFcL5lsgPirfc96KNUg

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjFr_C25czNAhXMJ8AKHWQpCI8QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatedepot.com%2F2015%2F11%2F19%2Fscientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path%2F&usg=AFQjCNFHg0D_ax9FFcL5lsgPirfc96KNUg

:eek::eek::eek:

Marc Morano's website?

Why not link to NaturalNews while you're at it.

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

Marc Morano's website?

Why not link to NaturalNews while you're at it.

So these MIT scientists don't have a clue but those other guys are really smart.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

So these MIT scientists don't have a clue but those other guys are really smart.

If you want to prove that you care about the science and are not politically and ideologically motivated Link to the studies in the peer reviewed journals, not the conservative political advocacy website of Marc Morano and his shills Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer etc

Scientists reach their conclusions after they have studied the evidence and data.

Ideologues reach their conclusions and then cherrypick the data that suits their agenda,