2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mere facts. But, as I said, when supply side economics is used we magnify environmental problems. The idea that self-interest, through some half-arsed reference to the invisible hand, can be twinned with environmentalism is optimism run amok. Crikey, the Coase Theorem doesn't even say that!
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's ridiculous. Wealth generation is maximized enabling more resources to be applied to environmental problems. Get your head out of the theoretical and pay attention to the real world.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You honestly believe that? That's a "ahhhh bless" moment. Not even the IMF believe that and they supported the stupidity of the Washington Consensus.

    It amuses me that the only part of neoliberalism you could apply (i.e. the idea of property rights protection to ensure environmental protection) you clearly do not know. Its a worry when right wingers don't even know their bobbins!
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. The environment is much better now than it was 50 years ago. And the reason for that is gov regulations and the wealth created by private industry to implement changes resulting in an better standard of living and cleaner environment based on threshold standards. The IMF is a joke as are all "international" economic organizations. Who came up with the Based Rules which resulted in the US financial crisis of 2009 ??

    What's amusing (actually not - very tragic) is the application of policy based on academics unrelated to the real world and the inability to forecast the severity of the consequences if assumptions are bogus. The US financial crisis is an again tragic example of the inability of economists to predict and warn and the inability of economists to formulate and implement actions leading to a robust recovery. The stimulus did not stimulate and the spending was not actually applied until after the recession was over. 'Guess there were not as many shovel ready projects as we thought - yuk, yuk). What a joke.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you refer to one credible source that says "the environment is much better now than it was 50 years ago"? I know you won't, but provide the reference!

    Prove me wrong!
     
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think we need a credible source to know that the environment is better today than it was 50 years ago. That's self evident. I mean, there's almost certainly some aspects that are worse, but overall it's better. No leaded paint, lead gasoline, asbestos, and countless other examples.
     
  7. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Time to get rid of the editorials, and actually provide some backup for your assertions. It's also time to get this thread back on topic.

    2017 is now very close to 2015 for the second warmest year ever. 2016 was the warmest. Quite telling!!!
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that it was warmer 1000 years ago. Quite telling.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, nothing wrong with the critique itself. It was actually pretty professional and above board...until...the guy writes and op-ed piece for the WSJ labeling the whole report as deceptive right there in the title. That's not the way you garner respect in a professional environment.
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What matters in the truth. The original statement was deceptive for the reasons stated. If the product review (red - blue) process had been followed the original deceptive statement would not have been issued. There are very polite reviewers and complete a$$holes. But the important thing it to catch errors before the product goes out the door. The original statement was bad enough in academia but submitting it to the general public was a big mistake.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You neglected to address this.

    Half a doubling of CO2 has already produced 1.0C - 1.2C warming, meaning TCS is already 2.0C - 2.4C, and ECM has to be significantly bigger. Yet here you are, claiming <1.5C, a figure that's flatly contradicted by reality.

    It appears as though you didn't address that because it shows your kook claim is entirely fictional.

    Another outright fabrication on your part. Like most deniers, the only science you have is openly fraudulent science. Deniers are the devoted acolytes of a fraud cult.
     
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Indeed. It tells us you're failing at basic logic.

    The fact that forest fires happen naturally doesn't stop humans from causing forest fires.

    The fact the species go extinct naturally doesn't stop humans from causing extinctions.

    The fact that climate changes naturally doesn't stop humans from chaning climate.

    The fact that things happen naturally doesn't mean humans can't also change them. This is grade-school level logic, but most deniers can't grasp it. Deniers as a whole just lack the intelligence to be in the discussion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your cherry picked data calculation. The IPCC has acknowledged that the data based climate sensitivity is ~ 1.5 deg C.

    The consensus of MWP papers indicates ~ 0.6 deg C warmer than it is today.
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to NASA warming since 1880 is 0.8c. Of course the farther back you go the larger the uncertainty since the farther back you go the fewer temperature station there are.

    The warming since the bottom of The Little Ice age is ~1.8c but according to the IPCC the unprecedented rise in CO2 started in the 1950s.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

    Plenty of papers out there assessing the MWP was warmer than today, especially the Law Dome 180c proxy, which is usually ignored by those pushing the agenda. The Law Dome shows the warmest period during the Holocene optimum about 10,000 years ago with continuous cooling until the present day.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
    drluggit and AFM like this.
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who is claiming that human emissions of CO2 do not affect the global average temperature ??

    What is the politically possible energy policy applied globally that will result in any significant reduction in the rate of global average temperature increase ?? That's the problem with alarmists - they advocate and implement policies which will cause regressive economic damage but will not reduce the global temperature. All they do is use Alinsky tactics and revert to insults and name calling.
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,971
    Likes Received:
    28,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just have to laugh a little. So, at about a 40% certainty, you're advancing an assertion of less than .1C differentiation. I would bet that you couldn't if you tried tell the difference between 1C let alone a tenth of that.
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you didn't just fake that claim outright, show us how Curry was expelled. After all, you said "literally". That means you're saying she was actually forced to leave her job.

    Curry made a prediction of immediate cooling in 2013. That was followed by 3 years of record-breaking warmth. Scientifically, she failed as badly as it's possible to fail. That, of course, endears her to deniers, who worship failure. However, normal people had the nerve to pointed out that her scientific claims had failed completely, so she should probably address that.

    Rather than explain why she pooched it so badly, Curry screamed that all the other scientists were frauds, and then quit her job and fled the field of science. Why? Because she had a source of bigger income lined up. Now she runs a "forecasting" company, which won't give any examples of what its forecasts are, or say who its clients are. Given how Curry's "forecasts" tend to be the opposite of how reality turns out, nobody would actually pay money for them. Her forecasting company is a front to allow her to legally accept fossil fuel company bribe money in exchange for generating propaganda.

    Pielke Jr. was never in climate science, so that's quite a trick. His doctorate is in political science. Pielke Sr., now retired, was the climate scientist. Pielke Jr is still working happily at U Colorado, hence your claim of persecution there is another fabrication.

    You've actually proved the opposite, that critics of climate science do _not_ get persecuted. You're just projecting your own lust for censorship on to the honest people.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So when faced with evidence and called to back up your crazy claims, you flat out refuse to do so, and instead just repeat your conspiracy theories yet another time.

    That is, you're just a cult propaganda drone.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand. You saw facts and data, and it triggered you badly.

    But then, that's expected. If you accepted reality, you'd be a liberal.

    Setting up new grid power is now more expensive than renewable power, so it's economically beneficial for the third world to skip it. And even worse, some of these areas are politically unstable, and a power grid is an indefensible easy target for rebels.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when sulfate aerosols from pollution were blocking sunlight, creating cooling. Unlike you, I don't think CO2 is the only factor driving climate.

    Which shows nothing, given the times scales it takes for glaciers to melt.

    And the sun was much cooler at that time. With solar levels that low, the earth should have been a snowball. It wasn't. Good work, you've just proven CO2 had to be the warming factor.

    The sun has been cooling since 1970, but the world is warming strongly. That kills your solar theory.

    You're projecting the way you work on to the rational people. I include all factors. You only include the solar factor, and ignore all others.
     
    Media_Truth likes this.
  21. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand. You think propoganda is fact thus the confusion
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those are facts. They have nothing to do with conspiracies.
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More personal attacks on Curry & Pielke Jr and of course the uncontrollable Alinsky responses regarding 'deniers who worship failure'. You know exactly what happened to Curry and Pielke Jr. who has written at least 2 books and many articles on climate science. In the case of Pielke Jr. he was indeed drummed out of the field and denied income from it. Curry basically got fed up and left Georgia Tech after years of contributions there.

    The last 2 sentences are hilarious. Saul would be proud.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I think it's been cooling since 1960. Anyway, scientists who have tried to use only solar theory to predict temperatures have failed badly. And some, like Easterbrook and those mentioned in post #196, have failed so badly they can't even get the direction of the temperature change right. And here we are approaching another grand minimum in solar activity at the bottom of a short-cycle and 2017 is still the 2nd warmest on record. And that's with ENSO neutral to La Nina conditions.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  25. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page