2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 9:32pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

A link to a text doc with data that I quite clearly and quite obviously didn't ask for. Are you even capable of understanding a basic request?

Is there actually something wrong with you? I don’t take kindly to being gaslighted

Thargor · 30-01-2021 10:08pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Is there actually something wrong with you? I don’t take kindly to being gaslighted

I wonder what the professors going to do with the data anyway? Seeing as it will have been gathered by the people from his pic:

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Funny how thread policeman GaothLaidir is all over anyone who disagrees with his contributions but the continuous shrieking lunacy from this lad gets a pass every time...

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:17pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re confusing yourself needlessly

It is confusing for people new to this ‘debate’ but you’ve been here long enough to know the context around this statement.

When anyone says the ‘science is settled’ in the context of climate change, they are only referring to one single question. The question of whether Anthropogenic Climate Change is real or not. In
other contexts you could say “the science is Settled “ in relation to the ‘great debate’ in quantum physics, or evolution, or plate tectonics’

It means the existential debate is over, refusing to accept ‘ the consensus’ is now science denialism

We can know plate tectonics is real without having to know when every earthquake or volcanic eruption will occur. We can say evolution is true without knowing every detail relating to epigenitics or Speciation

That is the singular question that ‘the science is settled’ is an answer for.

If you believe AGW is real, then you agree with the ‘settled’ side of the argument if you still think it’s a conspiracy or that there isn’t enough evidence to say this isn’t natural variability then you should disagree with that statement but you’re on extremely dodgy territory given the overwhelming scientific evidence that the greenhouse effect is real and humans are driving up CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere

Nobody who has ever said ‘the science is settled’ means all science is settled, or that no further uncertainty exists, or that we should stop studying and researching because we already know everything

It ONLY means that serious people need to move on from Debating the reality of AGW

Nope. This is the scenario:

IPCC: AGW is real and beyond discussion.
Me: Are you sure?
IPCC: Yep. We've added x ppm of CO2 and that alone has caused Y degrees of warming up to now.
Me: Ah, so if we add the same x ppm again we'll get another Y degrees of warming, right?
IPCC: Wait, what? Em, no, we don't know that.
Me: But you just said...
IPCC: I know what I said. It's just that we don't know how much warming 2X ppm will produce.
Me: So how do you know that X has been responsible for Y up to now?
IPCC: Because the overwhelming majority of experts say so.
Me: So they must also be pretty sure of how sensitive temperature is to this CO2 stuff.
IPCC: Actually no, it could be any multiples of X...or not. Now please go away.

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:21pm

Thargor wrote: »

I wonder what the professors going to do with the data anyway? Seeing as it will have been gathered by the people from his pic:

Funny how thread policeman GaothLaidir is all over anyone who disagrees with his contributions but the continuous shrieking lunacy from this lad gets a pass every time...

I'm not a mod, but I respond directly to those posts directed at me.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 10:42pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Nope. This is the scenario:

IPCC: AGW is real and beyond discussion.
Me: Are you sure?
IPCC: Yep. We've added x ppm of CO2 and that alone has caused Y degrees of warming up to now.
Me: Ah, so if we add the same x ppm again we'll get another Y degrees of warming, right?
IPCC: Wait, what? Em, no, we don't know that.
Me: But you just said...
IPCC: I know what I said. It's just that we don't know how much warming 2X ppm will produce.
Me: So how do you know that X has been responsible for Y up to now?
IPCC: Because the overwhelming majority of experts say so.
Me: So they must also be pretty sure of how sensitive temperature is to this CO2 stuff.
IPCC: Actually no, it could be any multiples of X...or not. Now please go away.

You’re completely shifting the goalposts

The conversation is actually.
Either

IPCC: increasing GHGs in the atmosphere leads to climate change
You: yes I agree
IPCC: ok that’s fine, now let’s talk about how to deal with that

Or

IPCC: increasing GHGs in the atmosphere leads to climate change
YOU: prove it?
IPCC: Fu.ck off we’ve had this ‘debate to death, your side lost, we need to start talking about how to actually deal with this now

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 10:45pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not a mod, but I respond directly to those posts directed at me.

It would be nice if you responded to bull**** posts on both sides of the ‘debate’
You are clever enough to recognize absolute nonsense even if it is not directed at you personally

If everyone challenged this rubbish (from both sides) then we’d have a more productive environment to discuss important ideas

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:46pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re completely shifting the goalposts

The conversation is actually.
Either

IPCC: increasing GHGs in the atmosphere leads to climate change
You: yes I agree
IPCC: ok that’s fine, now let’s talk about how to deal with that

Or

IPCC: increasing GHGs in the atmosphere leads to climate change
YOU: prove it?
IPCC: Fu.ck off we’ve had this ‘debate to death, your side lost, we need to start talking about how to actually deal with this now

A career in politics awaits you. How to dodge a question. Bunny Carr would be proud.

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It would be nice if you responded to bull**** posts on both sides of the ‘debate’
You are clever enough to recognize absolute nonsense even if it is not directed at you personally

If everyone challenged this rubbish (from both sides) then we’d have a more productive environment to discuss important ideas

Why don't you challenge Thargor and Bananaman then? I've yet to see you say boo to their consistent disruptive and off-topic posts.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 10:55pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

A career in politics awaits you. How to dodge a question. Bunny Carr would be proud.

Im not dodging a question at all.
How clear can I make it. ‘The science is settled’ is a response only to the cretins who deny that anthropogenic climate change is happening. That part of the science absolutely is settled. If your not a climate change denier, then your more than welcome to debate impacts, sensitivity, mitigation, details relating to data reliability or evidence collection or a Miriad of other topics

All of these things and many more, are still uncertain. But the ‘debate’ gets constantly derailed by conspiracy theorists and science deniers who have no interest in the evidence or facts. It would be nice if you could challenge these posters at least sometimes, so we can avoid this tedious cycle over and over again

I’m glad you no longer accept Lindzen and Bates ludicrous ECS of .5c
You need to educate others who look to you as an expert as to why their CT views are invalid and unhelpful

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Im not dodging a question at all.
How clear can I make it. ‘The science is settled’ is a response only to the cretins who deny that anthropogenic climate change is happening. That part of the science absolutely is settled. If your not a climate change denier, then your more than welcome to debate impacts, sensitivity, mitigation, details relating to data reliability or evidence collection or a Miriad of other topics

All of these things and many more, are still uncertain. But the ‘debate’ gets constantly derailed by conspiracy theorists and science deniers who have no interest in the evidence or facts. It would be nice if you could challenge these posters at least sometimes, so we can avoid this tedious cycle over and over again

I’m glad you no longer accept Lindzen and Bates ludicrous ECS of .5c
You need to educate others who look to you as an expert as to why their CT views are invalid and unhelpful

But that's what I'm doing. I never said AGW was false, I'm just debating the exact impact of it, as in the conversation I posted above. That's an accurate reflection of the state of play, like it or not.

Banana Republic 1 · 30-01-2021 11:02pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why don't you challenge Thargor and Bananaman then? I've yet to see you say boo to their consistent disruptive and off-topic posts.

I feel I have to respond in kind.

[P 1320.jpg?mh=762&mw=645

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:03pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why don't you challenge Thargor and Bananaman then? I've yet to see you say boo to their consistent disruptive and off-topic posts.

Because while they may be off topic and disruptive, they are usually in line with the scientific consensus and there are standards against ‘backseat modding’

If someone came on and started making scientifically inaccurate claims, that exaggerate the impact of climate change or peddle conspiracy theories, I would, and often have, challenge them or correct them

But in the spirit of transparency, I commit to challenging anyone who makes a claim on my ‘side’ of the argument that I view as inaccurate or not supported by evidence

I’ll commit to this to the best of my ability given my limited time available to post on these forums

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 11:09pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It would be nice if you responded to bull**** posts on both sides of the ‘debate’
You are clever enough to recognize absolute nonsense even if it is not directed at you personally

If everyone challenged this rubbish (from both sides) then we’d have a more productive environment to discuss important ideas

Akrasia wrote: »

Because while they may be off topic and disruptive, they are usually in line with the scientific consensus

If someone came on and started flaking scientifically inaccurate claims, that exaggerate the impact of climate change or peddle conspiracy theories, I would, and often have, challenge them or correct them

But in the spirit of transparency, I commit to challenging anyone who makes a claim on my ‘side’ of the argument that I view as inaccurate or not supported by evidence

I’ll commit to this to the best of my ability given my limited time available to post on these forums

So rubbish means only scientific stuff you don't agree with but personal abuse and childish trolling posts are fair game? Ok.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:09pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I feel I have to respond in kind.

[P

I’m not sure if this is much better than the stuff Oneric posts on here. What point are you trying to make?

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:12pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So rubbish means only scientific stuff you don't agree with but personal abuse and childish trolling posts are fair game? Ok.

No, personal abuse and trolling from either side is wrong

The difference between robust debate and ‘personal abuse’ is a very grey area that the Mods need to grapple with

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 11:22pm

Akrasia wrote: »

No, personal abuse and trolling from either side is wrong

The difference between robust debate and ‘personal abuse’ is a very grey area that the Mods need to grapple with

And, as I said to Thargor, I'm not a mod.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:28pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But that's what I'm doing. I never said AGW was false, I'm just debating the exact impact of it, as in the conversation I posted above. That's an accurate reflection of the state of play, like it or not.

When you argued last year that ECS was .5c
That is equivalent with denying it is happening at
all
This was well below the scientific consensus at that time
Similarly when you promoted a paper by some lunatic who said atmospheric density dictated surface temperature in all planetary bodies, this was a effectively greenhouse effect denial. You’re welcome to hold such views, but when you spread them, or promote them, you align yourself with a certain side of the argument

It’s fine to make mistakes, but it’s only good manners to own up to them when you realize you screwed up and try to fix the consequences of those mistakes

And just this week, you said the models were inaccurate because they didn’t match observed warming
You admitted your graph was wrong, and that the model forecasts were actually very close to smack in the middle of the ensemble range. But you refused to alter your opinion even when you accepted new evidence

I’m not normally harsh on mistakes, but when someone thinks they know better that the consensus of globally recognized experts in their fields, they’d better be damned sure their calculations are correct

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:31pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And, as I said to Thargor, I'm not a mod.

I know that, I don’t want you to moderate posts, but when you see something that is clearly nonsense, you can point it out without being a ‘back seat mod’

Danno · 30-01-2021 11:32pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Why am I not shocked that you’re also an anti lockdown pandemic denialist

MOD NOTE: This has nothing to do with the current discussion, play the ball not the man.

Danno · 30-01-2021 11:34pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Nah, I'm not falling for that. This is more just about you being unable to explain your comment.

MOD NOTE: Keep it civil please folks.

Danno · 30-01-2021 11:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The speed at which we can transition to zero carbon is intrinsically tied to government policies to tackle climate change, government action has been far too slow and the later they leave it, the more expensive it will become

The tech just isn't there yet to transition to a zero-carbon near zero-carbon scenario.

Private transport is a must for the vast majority of people around the world, even in places served quite well with public transport, the need for private transport still exists and always will.

Until the tech is able to realistically compete with petrol/diesel then it won't be widely adopted. This is where the wise ones missed a trick. I should be able to pull in at my local "petrol station" in my EV and an attendant grabs a battery off a rack, pops it into my car and takes my battery back to the rack to charge up for the next driver in a few hours time.

Failing that, a 5-minute charge for 500 miles needs to be achieved.

Nabber · 30-01-2021 11:50pm

Some of the issues that we see with Climate science is the disagreement on the level of impact (expected or actualised) and the potential disruption.

On this thread and the CC3 thread the same thing happened. Folks who agree that change is required but don't buy into the hyperbole and doomsday are lumped in with folks who deny that there is any problem at all.

Where questioning the logic in some of the green incentives and initiatives automatically means assignment to 'climate denier'.

I do agree that folks from both sides need to be checked. From my own opinion it seems that doomsday pushers get a pass, there is very few if any reputable scientists who step forward to discredit some of the predictions in MSM.

The most frustrating part is that these false flags impede the ability to progress as much as the folks who deny humans have any meaningful impact on nature, climate or habitats.

Gaoth Laidir · 31-01-2021 12:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

When you argued last year that ECS was .5c
That is equivalent with denying it is happening at
all
This was well below the scientific consensus at that time
Similarly when you promoted a paper by some lunatic who said atmospheric density dictated surface temperature in all planetary bodies, this was a effectively greenhouse effect denial. You’re welcome to hold such views, but when you spread them, or promote them, you align yourself with a certain side of the argument

It’s fine to make mistakes, but it’s only good manners to own up to them when you realize you screwed up and try to fix the consequences of those mistakes

And just this week, you said the models were inaccurate because they didn’t match observed warming
You admitted your graph was wrong, and that the model forecasts were actually very close to smack in the middle of the ensemble range. But you refused to alter your opinion even when you accepted new evidence

I’m not normally harsh on mistakes, but when someone thinks they know better that the consensus of globally recognized experts in their fields, they’d better be damned sure their calcification are correct

Again, my corrected graph merely bumped up 5 years of data by a few tenths of a degree but the average before it was well below the ensemble mean. The correction only now brings the 5-year running mean back to the middle after consistently being below it. Let's see how the data continue from now.

Not sure what calcification has to do with anything but I reckon you meant calculation...

Danno · 31-01-2021 12:02am

Thargor wrote: »

I wonder what the professors going to do with the data anyway? Seeing as it will have been gathered by the people from his pic:

Funny how thread policeman GaothLaidir is all over anyone who disagrees with his contributions but the continuous shrieking lunacy from this lad gets a pass every time...

MOD NOTE: Firstly, GL is not a mod in this forum, if you have any issues with posts you can either A) report the post with an explanation why, or contact a Mod directly - there are a few of us to pick from.

Secondly, less of the insults towards another poster.

Banana Republic 1 · 31-01-2021 12:07am

Akrasia wrote: »

I’m not sure if this is much better than the stuff Oneric posts on here. What point are you trying to make?

Frankly this guy Goath comes on calling me disruptive, he/she/it spelled my thread name wrong, I assume deliberately. I’ve been following this forum for some time now and there are three types of poster.

1 The anti AGW climate change cohort who try two mask there spoofer by using long meandering sentences, jargon, and graphs. I would put contributors MT Cranium and Gaoth laoider into this bracket, the may truly believe what their shovelling or are genuine disruptors, trying to show up the “establishment”,

2 They other basket contains people like Danno, the “moderator” who got the last tread closed down following his racist comments, and the other red letter Fleet Street eaters.

Group three, the peddlers of genuine science who try to use facts to catch out the other two cohorts. I have tried that several times and will continue to do so why because I like researching things, just like MTs Bering Straits spoof, but the anti lot don’t read counter articles or watch clips which may discredit them so why waste energy on them.

When MT is rumbled he’s doesn’t respond. When Gaoth is rumbled he gets flustered and reverts to personal attacks often and I’m merely responding to that with a made up graph drawn from the internet, which he may or use in the future to support one of his mini ice age claims.

Danno · 31-01-2021 12:08am

Akrasia wrote: »

IPCC: increasing GHGs in the atmosphere leads to climate change
YOU: prove it?
IPCC: Fu.ck off we’ve had this ‘debate to death, your side lost, we need to start talking about how to actually deal with this now

The arrogance displayed in this comment is breath-taking, yet when taken to the stand to defend these assertations the language becomes notably tame with terms like "up to X degrees", "might never see snow again" and so forth.

Bullying from behind a veneer of faux concern. Repugnant.

Akrasia · 31-01-2021 12:10am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, my corrected graph merely bumped up 5 years of data by a few tenths of a degree but the average before it was well below the ensemble mean. The correction only now brings the 5-year running mean back to the middle after consistently being below it. Let's see how the data continue from now.

Not sure what calcification has to do with anything but I reckon you meant calculation...

A few tenths of a degree over 5 years is a huge difference that completely invalidated the point you were making while also demonstrating the need up use peer reviewed sources instead of home made graphs from some guy who seems to think he knows what he’s going

Akrasia · 31-01-2021 12:15am

Danno wrote: »

The arrogance displayed in this comment is breath-taking, yet when taken to the stand to defend these assertations the language becomes notably tame with terms like "up to X degrees", "might never see snow again" and so forth.

Bullying from behind a veneer of faux concern. Repugnant.

So you think the IPCC still needs to prove that the greenhouse effect is real?
there’s a conspiracy theory forum for that kind of debate. Like it or not, you’re in a Science forum

Mr. teddywinkles · 31-01-2021 12:17am

So swings from - 7 to 12 degrees in our climate is normal occurrence in a 2 day period throughout history. Sry but in my lifetime it is not normal lads.

Danno · 31-01-2021 12:22am

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So swings from - 7 to 12 degrees in our climate is normal occurrence in a 2 day period throughout history. Sry but in my lifetime it is not normal lads.

Have you some context about this temperature swing of 19c? Which incidentally is not a rare occurrence for these parts of the world.

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Comments