Forums

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

Sort:
Avatar of Knightly_News
Knightly_News
Apr 28, 2015
0
#141
xlote wrote:

Weird things have happened throughout History as we know it.  You local weather is not indicative of Global Warming or AGW, or Climate Change.  Climate has and will change over centuries.  Temperature rise & fall.  It's hot, it's cold.  It's wet it's dry.

It's weather and variation.  

Avatar of JamieDelarosa
JamieDelarosa
Apr 28, 2015
0
#142
now_and_zen wrote:
xlote wrote:

Here's one for youz guys....

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

 

What do scientists say about this, or the fact that the planet is warming and the oceans are rising?  Let me know when it's just more than one study that claims to be the trump card, or other global warming 'alarmist' scientists are recanting their position. The study is a month old and its the first I've heard of it. It hasn't made waves.

 

 

Oceans have risen aproximately 400 feet/130 meters in the past 12K years - humans had scant little to do with it.

Avatar of Syd_Arthur
Syd_Arthur
Apr 28, 2015
0
#143

The graphs don't mean that much compared to this:

Tropical plant fungal pathogen attacks northern hemisphere...

Stage 1:

Stage 2:

So when it comes to the biosphere, please let us biologists make the relevant observations.

Avatar of astronomer999
astronomer999
Apr 28, 2015
0
#144
xlote wrote:

Here's one for youz guys....

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

MICHAEL BASTASCH

10:07 PM 03/31/2015

 

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

 

Of course their figures and calculations are correct. Just like "Cold Fusion" was a huge thing a couple of decades ago

Avatar of Syd_Arthur
Syd_Arthur
Apr 28, 2015
0
#145

btw, virtual chess.com trophy awarded to whoever identifies this organism by genus, phylum, and species.

Avatar of Roo_2_Unlimited
Roo_2_Unlimited
Apr 28, 2015
0
#146

 
Wow, was this a bad year for those who deny the reality and the significance of human-induced climate change. Of course, there were the recent flurry of reports that 2014 surface temperatures had hit their hottest values ever recorded. The 2014 record was first called on this blog in December and the final results were reported as well, here. All of this happened in a year that the denialists told us would not be very hot.

But those denialists are having a tough time now as they look around the planet for ANY evidence that climate change is not happening. The problem is, they’ve been striking out.

And just recently, perhaps the most important bit of information came out about 2014 – how much the Earth actually warmed. What we find is that the warming is so great, NOAA literally has to remake its graphs. Let me explain this a bit.

We tend to focus on the global temperature average which is the average of air temperatures near the ground (or at the sea surface). This past year, global air temperatures were record-breaking. But that isn’t the same as global warming. Global warming is properly viewed as the amount of heat contained within the Earth’s energy system. So, air temperatures may go up and down on any given year as energy moves to or from the air (primarily from the ocean). What we really want to know is, did the Earth’s energy go up or down?

The trick to answering this question is to measure the change in energy of the oceans. A thorough review of ocean heat measurement methods is found here; we paid the requisite fee to make the paper open access. Anyone can download and read it.

So what do the new data show? Well, it turns out that the energy stored within the ocean (which is 90% or more of the total “global warming” heat), increased significantly. A plot from NOAA is shown above. You can see that the last data point (the red curve), is, literally off the chart.

The folks at NOAA do a great job updating this graph every three months or so. We can now say that the 2014 Earth had more heat (thermal energy) than any year ever recorded by humans. We can also say that the folks at NOAA will likely have to rescale their graph to capture the new numbers. The NOAA site is updated by Dr. Tim Boyer and can be found here. Click on slide 2 to view the relevant image.

If people want to read a review of ocean heating that is written for a general audience, I suggest our recent peer-reviewed paper which can be found here.

So when we look back on 2014 and the records that fell, it gives us some pause about the so-called pause (hat-tip to Dr. Greg Laden for that phrase). Some people tried to tell us global warming had “paused”, that it ended in 1998, or that the past 15 years or so had not seen a change in the energy of the Earth. This ocean warming data is the clearest nail in that coffin. There never was a pause to global warming, there never was a halt, and the folks that tried to tell you there was were, well, I’ll let you decide. For me, the facts speak for themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

Avatar of JamieDelarosa
JamieDelarosa
Apr 28, 2015
0
#147

Not having a "tough time" at all.  Alarmist exaggeration and prevarication is expected.

Case in point:

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.
Avatar of denner
denner
Apr 29, 2015
0
#148

Cause and effect people. So the world may be warming up but so is Mars. Kinda hard for carbon dioxide emissions from SUVs to be causing that. It seems ridiculous to have to be suspicious of our leaders political agendas but that is the world in which we live. It's patently obvious that certain political parties seize on any opportunity to cry crisis in order to acquire more control over the populace (power). And that is exactly what has happened here.

Avatar of Roo_2_Unlimited
Roo_2_Unlimited
Apr 29, 2015
0
#149

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

You are practically busted! You keep harping on about how the earth has cooled since 50 squilion years ago, you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the fact that the actual thermal energy has increased significantly.  What is it about energy transfer that you fail to understand?  Where do you think the energy that we use, consume, produce goes?  Do you think it simply dissipates into nothingness? Perhaps some basic science might help you Sista? No silly references to any unspecified margins of error, no silly assertions with comparisons to other years on the significance of margins can negate the fact that 2014 WAS the warmest year on record.  Now I suggest that you suck it up into your mind cause you are busted!

Where does the energy go?

Avatar of Knightly_News
Knightly_News
Apr 29, 2015
0
#150
robbie_1969 wrote:

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

You are practically busted! You keep harping on about how the earth has cooled since 50 squilion years ago, you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the fact that the actual thermal energy has increased significantly.  What is it about energy transfer that you fail to understand?  Where do you think the energy that we use, consume, produce goes?  Do you think it simply dissipates into nothingness? Perhaps some basic science might help you Sista? No silly references to any unspecified margins of error, no silly assertions with comparisons to other years on the significance of margins can negate the fact that 2014 WAS the warmest year on record.  Now I suggest that you suck it up into your mind cause you are busted!

 

Where does the energy go?

Her agenda is partisan and political and that's why she's all over the map with the rebuttals and cherry picks what she replies to and ignores the most salient points and then floods a crapload of tangental information.  It's primarily a disinformation campaign designed to overwhelm, confuse and mislead people on the topic of AGW.

Avatar of Roo_2_Unlimited
Roo_2_Unlimited
Apr 29, 2015
0
#151

Hmmmm there has to be some other motivation other than a purely scientific one.  People who are prepared like this to disseminate disinformation are morally reprehensible.

Avatar of Knightly_News
Knightly_News
Apr 29, 2015
0
#152
robbie_1969 wrote:

Hmmmm there has to be some other motivation other than a purely scientific one.  People who are prepared like this to disseminate disinformation are morally reprehensible.

If you look through the history of this thread, the OP and xlote tipped their hand that it's partisan/political BS (they even trotted out 'socialism' and other bs tangental motives and party line/talking points/slurs). Science is definitely not at the root of this thread. It is merely a thinly-veiled  partisan political hit piece, and as such, it does not belong in the chess.com forums as per Erik's pinned top post for this forum

Avatar of Roo_2_Unlimited
Roo_2_Unlimited
Apr 29, 2015
0
#153

If you look through the history of this thread, the OP and xlote tipped their hand that it's partisan/political BS (they even trotted out 'socialism' and other bs tangental motives and party line/talking points/slurs). Science is definitely not at the root of this thread. It is merely a thinly-veiled  partisan political hit piece, and as such, it does not belong in the chess.com forums as per Erik's pinned top post for this forum

Many Americans use the term socialism like its a dirty word.

Avatar of Knightly_News
Knightly_News
Apr 29, 2015
0
#154
robbie_1969 wrote:

If you look through the history of this thread, the OP and xlote tipped their hand that it's partisan/political BS (they even trotted out 'socialism' and other bs tangental motives and party line/talking points/slurs). Science is definitely not at the root of this thread. It is merely a thinly-veiled  partisan political hit piece, and as such, it does not belong in the chess.com forums as per Erik's pinned top post for this forum

Many Americans use the term socialism like its a dirty word.

Well it's certainly a partisan/political one, and almost invariably erroneous, disingenuous when Conservatives use it.  Most US Liberals do not like the idea of a purely Socialist government, but just want a healthy balance of Capitalism with some healthy robust social services and safety nets paid for by tax $. Republicans go for the winner-take-all monpolistic unregulated Capitalism leading to an extreme and growing class divide behind most of the social/economic problems festering in the country.  But I'm only clarifying, and in response to the the post where the OP tipped her hand and lobbed the accusation of socialism W.R.T. global warming.

Avatar of Tree_House_Chess
Tree_House_Chess
Apr 29, 2015
0
#155

Really? If my wife who has a terrible medical condition is forced to go to a doctor other than the expert on her rare condition that saved her life... That almost happened under Obama socialist care... So yes...the above is an example of "dirty" socialism.

Avatar of Knightly_News
Knightly_News
Apr 29, 2015
0
#156
clms_chess wrote:

Really? If my wife who has a terrible medical condition is forced to go to a doctor other than the expert on her rare condition that saved her life... That almost happened under Obama socialist care... So yes...the above is an example of "dirty" socialism.

"almost happened"?

Except

  1. Obamacare isn't mandatory. You can choose a private insurer and/or doctor.
  2. She has a pre-existing condition. Obamacare prevents her from being excluded from any and all insurance plans, and being dropped during major health problems, then rejected for pre-existing conditions, as was common practice by private insurers, pre-ACA
  3. Many insurance plans and HMOs will ony cover certain doctors/treatments anyway.
  4. Under Obamacare you can pay for different levels of coverage. And you get what you pay for, just like w/o ACA.

So what was your point again, exactly? That something bad almost happened you think?

Anymore BS partisan talking points?

Avatar of Roo_2_Unlimited
Roo_2_Unlimited
Apr 29, 2015
0
#157

another bust!

Avatar of JamieDelarosa
JamieDelarosa
Apr 29, 2015
0
#158
the_chess_zebra wrote:

I remember the first time there was a lightning storm in JANUARY in Michigan: 2002.  The following year, there was a lightning storm in JANUARY in FInland.  Old-timers said they had never seen rain in the winter before.

Last year, the summer temperature in Finland reached +30 Celcius for three weeks straight.  Anything over +25 is considered hot.  Old-timers couldn't remember a week with continuous +30.

Ten years ago, you could go to the Lapland and it was cold with meters of snow.  A few years ago, we noticed the permafrost melting.

Until 1990, I turned my horses on summer grass in May.  By 2000, the grass has been green and full by the beginning of April.

The winter of 2014, I didn't wear my down parka once.  NOT ONCE!

I only had to plug in my car to warm up the engine for 14 days total last winter.  Ten years ago, you had to plug in your car every night from the beginning of November to the end of February.

I don't know if GLOBAL WARMING is real, but weird things are definitely happening up here in Finland.  If you study peer-reviewed research papers and do an academic literature review, you may find that the general consensus in the last 10 years is that GLOBAL WARMING is real.  The question is... how long can we continue to do nothing about it before the devastating effects of global warming become irreversible?

Maybe we should head up to the Arctic Circle and observe the lemmings...

The Earth has been considerably hotter during much of it's history, without "devastating effects."

I find interesting the hubris of global warming alarmists who believe humans can control the global environment, or to try and "preserve" the current climate.

Avatar of xlote
xlote
Apr 29, 2015
0
#159

now_and_zen wrote:

"If you look through the history of this thread, the OP and xlote tipped their hand that it's partisan/political BS (they even trotted out 'socialism' and other bs tangental motives and party line/talking points/slurs). Science is definitely not at the root of this thread. It is merely a thinly-veiled  partisan political hit piece, and as such, it does not belong in the chess.com forums as per Erik's pinned top post for this forum".

In this thread I have posted 3 articles to date.  I have responded to responses from 'now_and_zen' & 'robbie_1969'.   I never used the word socialist/socialism, etc., that I can remember.  I used Liberal on a few occassions.  If this is not allowed in these forums, I apologize for doing so.

Avatar of JamieDelarosa
JamieDelarosa
Apr 29, 2015
0
#160
now_and_zen wrote:
xlote wrote:

Here's one for youz guys....

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

 

What do scientists say about this, or the fact that the planet is warming and the oceans are rising?  Let me know when it's just more than one study that claims to be the trump card, or other global warming 'alarmist' scientists are recanting their position. The study is a month old and its the first I've heard of it. It hasn't made waves.

 

 

The global warming alarmist are experiencing "death by a thousand cuts."  They clamor for an outright refutation of their position, but fail to realize that each time a small facet of their imaginary global warming construct is refuted, the house of cards they have built begins to crumble.

There are hundreds of solid studies that refute tenets of the global warming religion.