The climate crisis grows exponentially.

[kensi]

Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has
warmed 1.3 degrees since the pre-industrial era:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/

We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster. As I write this, a
sequel to Helene is already in the works, potentially even worse.
Basically all of Florida is expected to get 100+ mm of *more* rain, in
addition to the storm surge and wind damage that will occur near the
site of landfall.

I tried to warn everyone. I've been doing so for years now. Will this,
finally, be enough to get some of your heads out of the sand, koOks?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

I know, right? I had to turn my A/C down to 67 today!

Post by kensi
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster. As I write this, a
sequel to Helene is already in the works, potentially even worse.
Basically all of Florida is expected to get 100+ mm of *more* rain, in
addition to the storm surge and wind damage that will occur near the
site of landfall.
I tried to warn everyone. I've been doing so for years now. Will this,
finally, be enough to get some of your heads out of the sand, koOks?

Nobody will EVER listen to you, you shrieking harpy.

[Scout]

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.

Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's

The only difference between those were the size of the population and all
the stuff to support that increased population.

And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age of
the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

[michael horton]

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and
all the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

Have you noticed that none of the climatist nuts ever mention the solar
flares from the sun and how they impact things here on Terra?

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by michael horton

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and
all the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

Have you noticed that none of the climatist nuts ever mention the solar
flares from the sun and how they impact things here on Terra?

This may be because dam librils did a science and math course
somewhere and know sommin.

Seems even the "big" possible effects of solar storms
are generally handled by the relevant authorities pretty well.

Power fails are supposed to be a big possible consequence.
But the stats show they barely appear above the noise
of people taking out power by tripping over wires
and shorting arc welders in the bath:

Years like: #stormalarts #uspoweroutages
2001 0 23 222.257*
2002 66 34 207.746*
2003 252 78 166.853
2007 195.5 94 179.275
2017 215.333 141.333 174.914
2022 160.667 144.667 186.933
2008 184 171 181.803
2009 15 106 218.959
2013 114.5 178 197.083
2011 103 356 199.612*
2019 128.5 292 194.005
2014 50 245 211.264
2015 149 191 189.498
2020 77 440 205.328*
2021 90 444 202.47*
(Binned by #stormalerts).

Stats tests:
T-test: P(beta<0) = 66%
Rank test: Calc Spearman = -.08
Crit val = .44 sd @ 5%; accept H0:not_connected
R2 = .014

I.e. 2 stats tests find there is no real connection
between years with lots of solar storms and years
with lots of power fails or contraiwise.
If anywthing, there are fewer power fails
across the US when there are lots of solar storms
because power companies take steps to handle
the situation.

The link between # diesel MV and hear attacks is,
OTOH, a real thing.
--
Fossil companies try to spin their billions in tax breaks as anything
but profits boosted by taxpayers. It's just "state revenue forgone"
and is not a payment or money, let alone some kind of theft or
confidence trick. If one of their employees was paid to put on a
black mask and go house-to-house in their neighbourhood asking
families to "donate" $7000 -- approx what US households contribute
a year to fossil subsidies -- to some oil conglomerate they would
be likely be strung up from the nearest overpass in 10 minutes.

In 2022, fossil fuel subsidies in the United States totaled $757 billion,
according to the International Monetary Fund.
-- EESI.org, 30 Jan 2024
[Around $6900 per US household per year].

[Scout]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by michael horton

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and
all the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

Have you noticed that none of the climatist nuts ever mention the solar
flares from the sun and how they impact things here on Terra?

This may be because dam librils did a science and math course
somewhere and know sommin.

Sure, and the cow jumped over the moon too....

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Scout
Sure, and the cow jumped over the moon too....

How apropops for you.
--
Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs
carsey.unh.edu, 25 Apr 2022
On a nationwide U.S. survey, around 10 percent of respondents agreed with
conspiracy claims that the Earth is flat, NASA faked the Moon ...

Fallout Over Flat-Earth Theory Hits Russia's 'Emmy' TV Awards
www.rferl.org, 4 Oct 2017
Russian TV's most prestigious awards ceremony has come under fire for
handing the "educational programming" trophy to the host of a recent show
giving credence to the theory that the Earth is flat.

[Scout]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Scout
Sure, and the cow jumped over the moon too....

How apropops for you.

Certainly showed your inability or even willingness to discuss the issue.
But that's so typical of you.

[kensi]

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and
all the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

The Roman Warm Period was a *regional* phenomenon, k00k. The planet as a
whole was cooler than it is now.

Meanwhile:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by kensi

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and
all the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

The Roman Warm Period was a *regional* phenomenon, k00k. The planet as a
whole was cooler than it is now.

Yeah, because you looked at all those Roman weather reports, right?

LOL

[Scout]

Post by kensi

Post by Scout

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has

Hurricane Hugo.. did pretty much exactly the same thing and with similar
consequences.
Then we had another one much like those 2 around the 30's
The only difference between those were the size of the population and all
the stuff to support that increased population.
And of course, if we go back to the Roman period before the Mini Ice Age
of the Early middle ages... we are 0.3 degrees cooler.

The Roman Warm Period was a *regional* phenomenon, k00k. The planet as a
whole was cooler than it is now.

Really? That's not what the climatologists say, but I'm willing to look at
your evidence.
Please present your evidence that the Warm Period prior to the mini Ice Age
was *regional*

And just like that.. Rudy will disappear back into his slime.

[kensi]

Post by Scout
Really? That's not what the climatologists say, but I'm willing to look
at your evidence.
Please present your evidence that the Warm Period prior to the mini Ice
Age was *regional*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
from approximately 250 BC..."

"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

SPNAK!

*snicker*

Post by Scout
And just like that.. Rudy will disappear back into his slime.

Who is "Rudy", ko0ky? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by kensi
"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
 unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
 from approximately 250 BC..."
"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

And elsewhere ? You don't know so you cannot conclude.
Some reconstitutions intended to suggest that it couldn't be global, but
they where statistically flawed.

Some hints that the Medieval warming was not restricted to Europe.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.03818700000005&z=1

[kensi]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
  unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
  from approximately 250 BC..."
"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

And elsewhere ?

*sigh*

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by kensi

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
????unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
????from approximately 250 BC..."
"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

And elsewhere ?

*sigh*
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

From the Antarctic ice core records first published 35y ago
we have some temperatures for years between 1AD and 1000AD.
Big surprise almost all of them are -ve. Incl around ~250 AD.
-1 of means "1 degree under Vostok temperatures in the 1950s"
where Vostok is 4km above sea level and around 80S.
So the region wasnt warmer than the 1950s and not significantly
warmer than the decades before or after 250 either.
As everyone but the science outsiders say, the MWP wasnt global.


+------+---------+
| year | deltaTS |
+------+---------+
| 19 | 0.15 |
| 57 | -0.53 |
| 97 | -0.96 |
| 138 | -1.24 |
| 178 | -1.21 |
| 218 | -1.06 | *** "warm spell"
| 258 | -0.88 | *** "warm spell"
| 298 | -1.51 | *** "warm spell"
| 338 | -1.33 |
| 377 | -0.96 |
| 415 | -1 |
| 453 | -0.46 |
| 489 | -0.03 |
| 524 | -0.13 |
| 560 | -0.05 |
| 594 | 0.33 |
| 629 | -0.4 |
| 665 | -1.64 |
| 703 | -1.48 |
| 739 | -0.65 |
| 774 | -0.27 |
| 808 | -0.65 |
| 843 | -0.83 |
| 876 | 0.27 |
| 908 | -0.05 |
| 941 | -0.81 |
| 974 | -0.28 |
+------+---------+

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by kensi

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
  unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
  from approximately 250 BC..."
"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

And elsewhere ?

*sigh*
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

Sigh... Of course, there was no "global" thermometer then, but there are
indices in many places all over the world that the Medieval Warm period
was warm in many places and the period of the Roman empire warmer.

Of course, the lower the sample frequency of proxy records, the smoother
the peaks in those records and the slower the indirect change rates.
Even a high frequency proxy record sampled every 60 years cannot compete
with a thermometer record sampled 2 times a day (21900 times more
frequently thus 150 times more variations).

[JTEM]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
*sigh*
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

Sigh... Of course, there was no "global" thermometer then, but there are
indices in many places all over the world that the Medieval Warm period
was warm in many places and the period of the Roman empire warmer.

The piece is literally disproving "Climate Change."

Remember: They switched to "Climate Change" because some places will
get warmer and some places will grow colder, some will get wetter and
some will be dryer...

But the cite is claiming that there was never any Medieval Warm Period
because it wasn't global!

There could not have been a Little Ice Age, only random fluctuation in
the temperature, because it wasn't GLOBAL.

So the piece is "Arguing" that "Climate Change" is WRONG, it's dead
wrong, that if it isn't GLOBALLY warmer or colder than there is no
change.

Hmm. Ireland just had a record cold summer.

Remember the triple-dip La Nina while they screamed that the oceans
were boiling over from AGW?

I know, I get it; even pointing out this insanity, the Klimate Kooks
are incapable of seeing the contradictions. The more of their idiocy
you expose, the more right they think they are...

[kensi]

Post by JTEM

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
*sigh*
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

Sigh... Of course, there was no "global" thermometer then, but there
are indices in many places all over the world that the Medieval Warm
period was warm in many places and the period of the Roman empire warmer.

The piece is literally disproving "Climate Change."

"Many places" != "worldwide", kOoks. Please reread the Columbia article,
this time for comprehension.

Post by JTEM
I know, I get it; even pointing out this insanity, the Klimate Kooks
are incapable of seeing the contradictions. The more of their idiocy
you expose, the more right they think they are...

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person, Klimate KoOk?

[JTEM]

Post by kensi

Post by JTEM
The piece is literally disproving "Climate Change."

"Many places" != "worldwide", kOoks.

You're clearly retarded and mistakenly believe that you're
responding to me...

Your cite is pretending to "Refute" the Medieval Warm Period,
the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age because they
were not global. But Gwobull Warbling" isn't global. in
fact, the owners switched to calling it "Climate Change"
precisely BECAUSE it's not "Global." They flat out insists
that not everywhere will get warmer...

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by JTEM
Your cite is pretending to "Refute" the Medieval Warm Period,
the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age because they
were not global. But Gwobull Warbling" isn't global. in
fact, the owners switched to calling it "Climate Change"
precisely BECAUSE it's not "Global." They flat out insists
that not everywhere will get warmer...

Kensi's argument is obviously self-defeating.

[kensi]

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to be,
koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.

The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe and
the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

The current warming is planet-wide and is caused by fossil fuel emissions.

[JTEM]

Post by kensi
Since you made up that term

Gwobull Warbling isn't global. That's why the owners
invented "Climate Change," because they insists that
it's not global.

And yet here, you being mentally retarded, are clinging
to a "Cite" -- Gwobull Warbling Thience -- that says
there never was a Roman Warm Period or a Medieval Warm
period or even the Little Ice Age because they weren't
global.

You refuted yourself.

Moron.

[Scout]

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to be,
koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe and
the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

Post by kensi
The current warming is planet-wide

Is it?

Post by kensi
and is caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Prove it.

Because you've already admitted that "warm period" occur naturally so how
can you establish this isn't natural?

Can you show the process by which the early "warm periods" occurred?

I doubt it.

If you can't explain the process for the prior periods how can you assert it
isn't the cause of this period?

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to be,
koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe and
the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.
And anyone at this stage that can't accept the changes 200y of
burning material that has been out of the biosphere for 100 mn years
(therefore turning back the clock 100 mn y) must be unable
to pass grade 6 science.

Even Exxon execs in the 70s acked the science. In the end
they and their shills and boosters just didnt give a shit about
anything but milking the public purse to maintain their "vital industry".

--
States like: %trump2020 suicide rate Linear model
Vermont 34.3 11.6667 11.6328
Hawaii 36.4 13.1 12.1892
New.York 39.1 8.3 12.9045*
Rhode.Island 40.9 11.1333 13.3814
Washington 42.725 13.8 13.8649
Colorado 44.6 22.1 14.3616**
Virginia 45.8 18.4 14.6795*
New.Hampshire 47.2667 17.1 15.0681
Michigan 49.4 14.3 15.6333
Wisconsin 50.3 16.24 15.8717
North.Carolina 51.75 13.5 16.2559
Texas 53.5 13.4 16.7195*
Ohio 54.95 15.9 17.1037
South.Carolina 56.9 22.35 17.6203*
Montana 58.92 18.24 18.1554
Nebraska 60.45 15.55 18.5608
Utah 62.45 19.2 19.0907
South.Dakota 63.8667 17.9 19.466
Arkansas 65.2 18 19.8192
Oklahoma 67.3 20.45 20.3756
North.Dakota 68.2 18.1 20.614
West.Virginia 70.3 18.5 21.1704
Wyoming 73.4 29.3 21.9917**(much below obs)

T-test: P(beta>0) = 99.99%
Rank test: P(order by trump2020 same as order by suicide rate) >= 99%
R2 = 46%

[Scout]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to be,
koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe and
the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit.

That can't be true.. they were able to prove it to you.

I will just note that when asked to back up your claims the result was lame
insults....

1) Ad hominen

Post by R Kym Horsell
In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.

Like this one.

2) Ad hominen

Post by R Kym Horsell
And anyone at this stage that can't accept the changes 200y of
burning material that has been out of the biosphere for 100 mn years
(therefore turning back the clock 100 mn y) must be unable
to pass grade 6 science.

Well that's a classic

3) Non sequitur

Post by R Kym Horsell
Even Exxon execs in the 70s acked the science.

4) Appeal to authority



What I don't see is any proof.. After all, according to your thinking.. we
would NEVER have warming periods in the past, because according to you ONLY
fossil fuel use could POSSIBLY cause such.

And yet, the history of climate is filled with examples of period of cooling
followed by periods of warming.

So unless you can show that fossil fuel use was the cause then.. you can not
assert it must be the cause not.

Could merely be a coincidence, or maybe something else entirely. Such as
core temperature fluctuation. Solar luminosity/spectrum shift. We already
know for a fact that Sol has a variable output. We know for example of the
11 year cycle of the sun. Who is to say there aren't other cycles. longer
cycles that govern solar output and this global warmth?

You have a trend. You find something that seems to correlate.. and
immediately assert causality.

We even know that CO2 in the atmosphere changes over time.. including before
man was even on the scene. Indeed based on past cycles a cycle of increase
CO2 could be expected at this time based on prior history.

So to simply assert this and only this MUST be the cause.. is a fallacy,
unsupported by any proof.

At best you have a correlation, but mere correlation does NOT establish
causality.

I would point that that even if what you said it true.. our best course of
action would be to ban ALL trade with China.
Their increases in CO2 emissions dwarfs that of any other nation and the
rate of increase utterly negates ANY attempt by the rest of the planet to
lower CO2 emissions.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/animation-top-15-carbon-emitters-1850-2022/

So if you're serious.. I expect you to be calling for a complete embargo of
Chinese goods... otherwise, piss off.

[kensi]

Post by Scout

In alt.global-warming Scout

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to
be, koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe
and the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit.

That can't be true.. they were able to prove it to you.

So, JTEM is reduced to burbling nonsensical neologisms and incoherent
Trumpesque k0okfroth, and you are reduced to lame IKYABWAIs.

kensi/Kym 1 - 0 Scout/JTEM

Game for a rematch?

*snicker*

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by kensi

Post by Scout

In alt.global-warming Scout

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to
be, koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe
and the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit.

That can't be true.. they were able to prove it to you.

So, JTEM is reduced to burbling nonsensical neologisms and incoherent

I dont know about "reduced". It might even be a step up for him.

Kinda pathetic when even in govt 75% of politicians accept 200 year old
physics and the ~25% of the US population reject the heat from the ground
interacts with the atmosphere seem to be the same group that rejects the
earth orbits the sun.

As I say from time time time -- Dunnning and Kruger are onto something. :)
--
23% of US Congress Members Are Climate Change Deniers - And They're
All Republican
Green Queen, 10 Aug 2024
A new report has found that nearly a quarter of elected federal
officials in the US think climate change is a hoax, and all of them
belong to the Republican...

Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change
U.S. News & World Report, 15 Feb 2024
[A prev Yale survey in 2023 estimated 16% of Americans do not accept
AGW is real].

Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs
carsey.unh.edu, 25 Apr 2022
On a nationwide U.S. survey, around 10 percent of respondents agreed with
conspiracy claims that the Earth is flat, NASA faked the Moon ...

Third of Russians think sun spins round Earth?
Reuters, 11 Feb 2011
Does the sun revolve around the Earth? One in every three Russians thinks so,
a spokeswoman for state pollster VsTIOM said on Friday.

[Scout]

Post by kensi

Post by Scout

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to
be, koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe
and the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit.

That can't be true.. they were able to prove it to you.

So, JTEM is reduced to burbling nonsensical neologisms and incoherent
Trumpesque k0okfroth, and you are reduced to lame IKYABWAIs.

A just like that kensi proves I was correct.

[Nadegda]

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi

Post by Scout

In alt.global-warming Scout

Post by Scout

Post by kensi

Gwobull Warbling isn't global.

Since you made up that term, presumably it's whatever you want it to
be, koOky. What it's not is relevant to the discussion here.
The earlier "warm periods" were Europe and the Mediterranean, Europe
and the North Atlantic, or similar regional warmings.

Prove it.

You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit.

That can't be true.. they were able to prove it to you.

So, JTEM is reduced to burbling nonsensical neologisms and incoherent
Trumpesque k0okfroth, and you are reduced to lame IKYABWAIs.
kensi/Kym 1 - 0 Scout/JTEM
Game for a rematch?
*snicker*

Oooh, *ouch*. Two more kooks get pwned.

<snicker>

VOTE HARRIS!

[Tard Wrangler]

Once upon a time, on or about Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:06:12 -0000 (UTC),
Nadegda allegedly stated the following, and is solely responsible for

Post by Nadegda
VOTE HARRIS!

I wouldn't vote for that lying fake DEI Negro for dog catcher.

[kazu]

Post by Tard Wrangler
Once upon a time, on or about Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:06:12 -0000 (UTC),
Nadegda allegedly stated the following, and is solely responsible for

Post by Nadegda
VOTE HARRIS!

I wouldn't vote for that lying fake DEI Negro for dog catcher.

lol fake negro

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by R Kym Horsell
You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.

You have to prove what you allegate, even if some of your contradictors
won't be convinced.
Scout's argument was : "Because you've already admitted that "warm
period" occur naturally so how can you establish this isn't natural? "

So : what makes you so sure that, though previous climate fluctuations
were "natural", the modern one is not.

[Scout]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by R Kym Horsell
You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.

You have to prove what you allegate, even if some of your contradictors
won't be convinced.
Scout's argument was : "Because you've already admitted that "warm period"
occur naturally so how can you establish this isn't natural? "
So : what makes you so sure that, though previous climate fluctuations
were "natural", the modern one is not.

Bingo.

Now consider.. We know that Sol is a variable star, and we have firmly
established a 11 year cycle in which luminosity (and thus heat output)
changes) who is to say there aren't longer cycles of which we know little or
nothing about? After all, something caused all those Ice Ages.

That's external, now, what about internal?

We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is currently
changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any shift in mass.
it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since we are slowing. If
the mass moved toward the center then rotation increases. So all this ice
and snow that is melting and running into the oceans SHOULD be increasing
the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's slowing. So what other
fluid/semi-fluid mass do we have? The Earth's core? Could this be cause by
the cooler outer core sinking into the inner core and pushing the more fluid
(and hotter) less dense inner core out towards the surface. The hotter it is
and the closer it is the the surface the more heat will be transferred
outwards.
Given the surface area and time even a minor change would affect atmospheric
temperatures.

We KNOW global temperatures have changed before, and thus are almost
certainly going to do so again. Indeed, based on past cycles we are due for
a period of global warming.

ALL though natural processes.

So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is somehow
non-natural?

She can't. There is no known way to totally account for natural changes
because we don't have a long enough time window of accurate measurement to
even establish a base line.

I mean WHO has ever monitored deep soil temperatures for centuries or even
decades.. but a 1 degree change in ground temperature would drastically
impact air temperatures.. which then impacts other things which further
impact air temperatures.. and so so and such like.

Further if she were TRULY concerned about Carbon Emissions, she would be
calling for a global embargo of all Chinese products.

Their contribution to global emissions dwarfs any reduction made by the rest
of the planet.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/animation-top-15-carbon-emitters-1850-2022/

We would do more for the environment by boycotting China than anything else.

Oh, and where do we get the bulk of solar panels and the generator heads for
those windmills.. that's not even considering the mining China does to get
the rare earths needed for both.

And when we get done with the solar panels.. we have only one thing to do
with them.. crush them up and dump them in a landfill there to leach the
nasty elements into our ground water, because we have no means to recycle
them at least not at any cost effective manner.. unless we are going to
massively increase the price of solar panels to the point no one could
afford them.

No, if we were truly interested in reducing CO2 and cleaning the air and
actually improving the environment.. we would be planting trees. Lots of
trees.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Scout

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by R Kym Horsell
You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.

You have to prove what you allegate, even if some of your contradictors
won't be convinced.
Scout's argument was : "Because you've already admitted that "warm period"
occur naturally so how can you establish this isn't natural? "
So : what makes you so sure that, though previous climate fluctuations
were "natural", the modern one is not.

Bingo.

...

Translation:The earth looks flat. I think it is flat. That's
what my daddy told me. So it must BE flat. Anyway I've been
asleep since 1950. Yadda yadda yadda.


In the past changes in atm GHG have slowly changed climate over 1000s
of millions of years.
Exactly the same thing has been done by burning fossil fuels for
the past 170+ years and raising atm CO2 by 50% over pre 1850 levels.
The rise in av global temps exactly matches expectations.
The isotopic fingerprint of the atm CO2 and CH4 exactly match the
amount of fossil fuele burned.
The fossil companies have freely admitted these things.
Every scientit knows it, even if some downplay a change in 1-2 deg of
global temp.
--
Exxon Climate Modeler Brian Flannery And New York University Professor
Martin Hoffert (1985): Consensus CO2 Warming: Transient climate models
currently available, when run with standard scenarios of fossil fuel
CO2 emissions, indicate a global warming of the order of 1 [degree
Celsius] by the year 2000, relative to the year 1850, and an
additional 2-5 [degrees Celsius] warming over the next
century. However, the sensitivity of such predictions to known
uncertainties of the models -- that is, the robustness of CO2 warming
predictions -- has not yet been extensively explored.

Exxon Environmental Affairs Programs Manager M.B. Glaser (1982):
Predictions of the climatological impact of a carbon dioxide induced
"greenhouse effect" draw upon various mathematical models to gauge the
temperature increase. The scientific community generally discussed the
impact in terms of doubling of the current carbon dioxide content in
order to get beyond the noise level of the data. We estimate doubling
could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements
projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook. The question of which
predictions and which models best simulate a carbon dioxide-induced
climate change is still being debated by the scientific community. Our
best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could
increase average global temperature by about 1.3 [degrees Celsius] to
3.1 [degrees Celsius].

Exxon Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Director Roger
W. Cohen (1982):
[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific
consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of
increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result
in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 [plus-or-minus] 1.5)
[degrees Celsius]. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the
inability of even the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a
totally realistic manner. ... [T]he results of our research are in
accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate.

Exxon Senior Scientist James F. Black (1978):
In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the
most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate
is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. A
doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing
the average global temperature by from 1 [degree] to 3 [degrees Celsius],
with a 10 [degrees Celsius] rise predicted at the poles. More research is
needed, however, to establish the validity and significance of
predictions with respect to the Greenhouse Effect. It is currently
estimated that mankind has a 5-10 yr. time window to obtain the
necessary information.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by R Kym Horsell
Translation:The earth looks flat.

It is just the opposite : you presume that "climate" has been flat since
(I suppose) the start of the holocene, that is the fluctuations in the
hundred of places where proxies show variations exactly compensate.
That's a bold supposition which requires a strong proof.

[Scout]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Scout

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by R Kym Horsell
You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
disingenuous nitwit.

You have to prove what you allegate, even if some of your contradictors
won't be convinced.
Scout's argument was : "Because you've already admitted that "warm period"
occur naturally so how can you establish this isn't natural? "
So : what makes you so sure that, though previous climate fluctuations
were "natural", the modern one is not.

Bingo.

...
Translation:The earth looks flat. I think it is flat. That's
what my daddy told me. So it must BE flat. Anyway I've been
asleep since 1950. Yadda yadda yadda.

No, it means that if something has happened before naturally, then you have
to show it happening again is somehow unnatural.

Though I can understand your unwillingness (or inability) to understand that
concept. After all, I bet you probably think the sun sets because someone
somewhere flipped a switch. After all, it couldn't have been natural.

Post by R Kym Horsell
In the past changes in atm GHG have slowly changed climate over 1000s
of millions of years.

Did it? Can you provide the daily weather for something that happened
millions of years ago.. However, since you brought the subject up.. what is
the minimum time interval between different samples that can be established
for climate events hundreds of thousands and millions of years in the past.

Then for that sample.. is it an instantaneous value or an average over a
period of time and what period of time would it be the average of?

Post by R Kym Horsell
Exactly the same thing has been done by burning fossil fuels for
the past 170+ years and raising atm CO2 by 50% over pre 1850 levels.

Yep, but how much of that is from fossil fuels?

After all, the number you cite also includes land use.. such as farming...
or are you suggesting we put you on a starvation diet to reduce CO2 levels?

Further as far as I can see the ASSUMPTION is that man's activities is the
cause of all CO2 increase, but is that actually true? After all, something
changed the global temperatures in the past when you couldn't blame man for.
So what were the causes and amounts then and how much of that accounts for
any changes today.

Which of course, depends on the accuracy and resolution of the data samples
I asked you about above.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by R Kym Horsell
Exactly the same thing has been done by burning fossil fuels for
the past 170+ years and raising atm CO2 by 50% over pre 1850 levels.
The rise in av global temps exactly matches expectations.
The isotopic fingerprint of the atm CO2 and CH4 exactly match the
amount of fossil fuele burned.

recent 13C/12C ratio :
2023-02 -8.93 PDB

https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/ptb.html
Fossil fuel typical ratio : -26 PDB
Natual ratio : -7 PDB

-7.X - 26.(1-X) = -8,93
-7X -26 +26X = -8,93
19.X = 26 - 8,93
19.X = 17,07
X = 0,898

Feb. 2023 : 11% fossil fuel CO2 + 89% "natural" CO2
That result doesn't match your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is invalidated

[JTEM]

Post by Paul Aubrin
Feb. 2023 : 11% fossil fuel CO2 + 89% "natural" CO2
That result doesn't match your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is invalidated

It knows. Climate Kapos don't care about facts. They have truths.
Plus they'll be the last into the ovens, they think, if they can
only be of some use to their masters...

[kensi]

Post by Scout
We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is
currently changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any
shift in mass. it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since
we are slowing. If the mass moved toward the center then rotation
increases. So all this ice and snow that is melting and running into the
oceans SHOULD be increasing the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's
slowing.

The ice that's melting is mostly close to the poles, and thus to the
axis of rotation. The water that results ends up distributed evenly in
the oceans, and most of it thus ends up farther from the poles. A chunk
of ice near the north or south pole contributes less to Earth's moment
of inertia than the same mass of water in, say, the Gulf of Mexico.

So, there is a mass flow away from the spin axis, from poles to equator.
There's also a slower, longer-term slowing caused by tidal effects
related to the moon.

Post by Scout
So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is
somehow non-natural?

https://skepticalscience.com/yes-its-still-us-and-its-still-bad.html

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by kensi

Post by Scout
We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is
currently changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any
shift in mass. it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since
we are slowing. If the mass moved toward the center then rotation
increases. So all this ice and snow that is melting and running into the
oceans SHOULD be increasing the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's
slowing.

The ice that's melting is mostly close to the poles, and thus to the
axis of rotation. The water that results ends up distributed evenly in
the oceans, and most of it thus ends up farther from the poles. A chunk
of ice near the north or south pole contributes less to Earth's moment
of inertia than the same mass of water in, say, the Gulf of Mexico.
So, there is a mass flow away from the spin axis, from poles to equator.
There's also a slower, longer-term slowing caused by tidal effects
related to the moon.

Post by Scout
So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is
somehow non-natural?

https://skepticalscience.com/yes-its-still-us-and-its-still-bad.html

The main cause of the changing speed of rotation is of course the
moons drag on the earth.
So Scooter is wrong again. How many times does that make?
--
Fossil companies try to spin their billions in tax breaks as anything
but profits boosted by taxpayers. It's just "state revenue forgone"
and is not a payment or money, let alone some kind of theft or
confidence trick. If one of their employees was paid to put on a
black mask and go house-to-house in their neighbourhood asking
families to "donate" $7000 -- approx what US households contribute
a year to fossil subsidies -- to some oil conglomerate they would
likely be strung up from the nearest overpass in 10 minutes.

[Operating Insolvent:]
In 2022, fossil fuel subsidies in the United States totaled $757 billion,
according to the International Monetary Fund.
-- EESI.org, 30 Jan 2024
[Around $6900 per US household per year].

During this period, the U.S. made an annual average revenue of 136.9
billion U.S. dollars through the production and marketing of fossil fuel
products.
-- statista.com, 29 Apr 2024

[Nadegda]

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi

Post by Scout
We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is
currently changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any
shift in mass. it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since
we are slowing. If the mass moved toward the center then rotation
increases. So all this ice and snow that is melting and running into the
oceans SHOULD be increasing the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's
slowing.

The ice that's melting is mostly close to the poles, and thus to the
axis of rotation. The water that results ends up distributed evenly in
the oceans, and most of it thus ends up farther from the poles. A chunk
of ice near the north or south pole contributes less to Earth's moment
of inertia than the same mass of water in, say, the Gulf of Mexico.
So, there is a mass flow away from the spin axis, from poles to equator.
There's also a slower, longer-term slowing caused by tidal effects
related to the moon.

Post by Scout
So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is
somehow non-natural?

https://skepticalscience.com/yes-its-still-us-and-its-still-bad.html

Nice to see you still in good form, smacking those kooks around. :)

And to all Americans reading this: don't forget to vote for Harris/Walz and
all down-ballot Democrats tomorrow, if you haven't already! It's time to
put an end to this Trump nonsense once and for all. Keep him out one more
time, and that will be it. His health is declining rapidly -- he won't make
it to 2028. This is the end of the road for the orange one.

<snicker>

[Tard Wrangler]

Once upon a time, on or about Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:04:54 -0000 (UTC),
Nadegda allegedly stated the following, and is solely responsible for

Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi

Post by Scout
We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is
currently changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any
shift in mass. it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since
we are slowing. If the mass moved toward the center then rotation
increases. So all this ice and snow that is melting and running into the
oceans SHOULD be increasing the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's
slowing.

The ice that's melting is mostly close to the poles, and thus to the
axis of rotation. The water that results ends up distributed evenly in
the oceans, and most of it thus ends up farther from the poles. A chunk
of ice near the north or south pole contributes less to Earth's moment
of inertia than the same mass of water in, say, the Gulf of Mexico.
So, there is a mass flow away from the spin axis, from poles to equator.
There's also a slower, longer-term slowing caused by tidal effects
related to the moon.

Post by Scout
So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is
somehow non-natural?

https://skepticalscience.com/yes-its-still-us-and-its-still-bad.html

Nice to see you still in good form, smacking those kooks around. :)
And to all Americans reading this: don't forget to vote for Harris/Walz and
all down-ballot Democrats tomorrow, if you haven't already! It's time to
put an end to this Trump nonsense once and for all. Keep him out one more
time, and that will be it. His health is declining rapidly -- he won't make
it to 2028. This is the end of the road for the orange one.
<snicker>

Your subscription to alt.checkmate has been cancelled, Commie PEEG!

[kazu]

Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi

Post by Scout
We know the rotation of the Earth has changed over time, and is
currently changing now. Which means a shift in mass. But not just any
shift in mass. it has to be a shift in mass AWAY from the center, since
we are slowing. If the mass moved toward the center then rotation
increases. So all this ice and snow that is melting and running into the
oceans SHOULD be increasing the speed of the earth's rotation, but it's
slowing.

The ice that's melting is mostly close to the poles, and thus to the
axis of rotation. The water that results ends up distributed evenly in
the oceans, and most of it thus ends up farther from the poles. A chunk
of ice near the north or south pole contributes less to Earth's moment
of inertia than the same mass of water in, say, the Gulf of Mexico.
So, there is a mass flow away from the spin axis, from poles to equator.
There's also a slower, longer-term slowing caused by tidal effects
related to the moon.

Post by Scout
So how does kensi propose to show that this cycle at this time is
somehow non-natural?

https://skepticalscience.com/yes-its-still-us-and-its-still-bad.html

Nice to see you still in good form, smacking those kooks around. :)
And to all Americans reading this: don't forget to vote for Harris/Walz and
all down-ballot Democrats tomorrow, if you haven't already! It's time to
put an end to this Trump nonsense once and for all. Keep him out one more
time, and that will be it. His health is declining rapidly -- he won't make
it to 2028. This is the end of the road for the orange one.
<snicker>

i am all for climate change change.

[Sn!pe]

Post by kazu
i am all for climate change change.

Bring it on. The only constant is change.

[%]

Post by Sn!pe

Post by kazu
i am all for climate change change.

Bring it on. The only constant is change.

in a few years i'll be able to walk to your house

[kazu]

Post by %

Post by kazu
i am all for climate change change.

Bring it on.  The only constant is change.

in a few years i'll be able to walk to your house

water, more water. you are talking about iceage. have you seen
the movies?

[Citizen Winston Smith]

Post by %

Post by kazu
i am all for climate change change.

Bring it on.  The only constant is change.

in a few years i'll be able to walk to your house

And face the sword - enjoy chief!

[Janithor]

x-no-archive: yes

Post by Citizen Winston Smith

Post by %

Post by kazu
i am all for climate change change.

Bring it on.  The only constant is change.

in a few years i'll be able to walk to your house

And face the sword - enjoy chief!

lol

[JTEM]

Post by kensi
*sigh*
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

This is utter nonsense. We know Greenland was warmer. We have
physical evidence such as vegetation which grew during the
Viking era, leaving roots that can be found even today, that
haven't been able to grow in locations there since.

What the piece is actually doing, though no climate kook can
ever grasp this, is REFUTING their own climate agenda!

They're saying that "Climate Change" is wrong it's "Global"
warming or "Global" cooling, and if it's not "Global" then
it's fake.

Read it. It's saying that the Medieval Warm Period was not
global -- this is what it's saying -- has there was no such
period, only normal variation in temperature. Because it
wasn't global.

Ireland just had a record cold summer, sugar lips. So if the
premise of this piece of garbage you "Cite" is correct, your
position is refuted.

You are falsified.

But that's the wonder & beauty of Gwobull Warbling brainwashing,
isn't it? You CAN and DO cling to even the most obvious
contradictions and self-refuting claims, and believe this proves
how intelligent you are!

[Scout]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
"The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of
unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran
from approximately 250 BC..."
"In Europe and the North Atlantic".

And elsewhere ? You don't know so you cannot conclude.
Some reconstitutions intended to suggest that it couldn't be global, but
they where statistically flawed.
Some hints that the Medieval warming was not restricted to Europe.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.03818700000005&z=1

Actually, if he's claiming it was localized then he's going to also explain
such a mechanism by which such an area could become massively colder for a
long period of time without any impact on the climate for the rest of the
world..

Yea, I would love to see the proposed mechanics and math for that.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

[kensi]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

It isn't a logarithmic effect, it's a linear one, and it drives a
nonlinear system, to wit the weather and climate which have feedback
loops built in.

Read up about r-factors in insulation.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by kensi

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

It isn't a logarithmic effect, it's a linear one, and it drives a
nonlinear system, to wit the weather and climate which have feedback
loops built in.
Read up about r-factors in insulation.

Yes. We see the total effecxt is very close to linear. In the
long-term surface temperature datasets we often find a correlation
between CO2 and global temp to be around .01 deg rise in temp
for each 1 ppmv in CO2.

By itself the effect of key GHG is logarithic. This is
often a kind of diversion you see from the climate deniers.
Roughly each doubling of CO2 is expected to raise the average world
temp by 3C. The poles warm twice as fast (even the Exxon research from
the 1970s shows that). Land warms 2x faster than the oceans. The
equator warms around 1/2 as fast as average.

But CO2 doesnt increase by itself. Higher temps mean the air holds
more water vapor. Like many other gases with more than 2 atoms WV is a GHG.
And the amount of WV is a slow exponential on temp (around 17% per +1C).

Even ignoring the effect of AGW on other key GHG like methane
(by product of plant growth/death) and N2O (byproduct of plankton
growth/death and key food crop turnover) we have CO2 -> logarithmic
increase in temps but increase in temps -> exponential increase in WV
and incr WV -> log incr in temps.
I.e. CO2 -> net linear increase in temps.

So what we see is exactly what was predicted in the 60s and 70s.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by R Kym Horsell
Yes. We see the total effecxt is very close to linear. In the
long-term surface temperature datasets we often find a correlation
between CO2 and global temp to be around .01 deg rise in temp
for each 1 ppmv in CO2.

Your opinion is in direct contradiction of the definition of climate
sensitivity (linear temperature increase to a concentration doubling,
i.e. base 2 logarithm).

Observations suggest that ocean temperature variations are a cause
(probably among others) of atmospheric concentrations variations six or
seven months later (please note : variations).

Please observe yourself :
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

The correlation is quite good, temperature variations precede
concentration variations :
Loading Image...

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by kensi

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

It isn't a logarithmic effect, it's a linear one,

What you pretend here is obviously false. According to the IPCC, CO2
concentrations have a logarithmic effect on climate forcing (W/m²).
Proof : climate sensitivity is expressed as a temperature increase for a
concentration doubling (base 2 logarithm).

[kensi]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

It isn't a logarithmic effect, it's a linear one,

What you pretend here is obviously false.

Says the k00k pretending not to be on the take from Big Oil ...

[norm]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

Hasn't the world already had multiple life-extinguishing disasters?

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by norm

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by kensi
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster.

With a cause with a logarithmic effect, the effect cannot be
exponential. You must be wrong.

Hasn't the world already had multiple life-extinguishing disasters?

In data science you train a program to be mostly right.
But if you accidentally find one that is usually wrong you can
use that too by inverting the answer. The "useful idiot".
As a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect /D\urbin fits
into this latter category.

It's well-known that atm wv is exponential on temperature -- for
each 1C there is around 17% more water vapor in the air.
This is an exponential growth i.e. ~ 1.17^temp = exp(log(1.17)*temp).

Plots of atm CO2 versus temp going back 20y are at <kym.massbus.org/graphs>.

E.g. <kym.massbus.org/graphs/co2m-lotim-sm.gif> shows atm CO2
measured at Mauna Loa versus the old NASA "loti".
More modern things show the same kinda of slope:
<kym.nassbus.org/graphs/co2-glb.gif> modern NASA global temps
<kym.nassbus.org/graphs/co2-aravg.gif> modern NOAA temps
<kym.nassbus.org/graphs/co2-jma.gif> modern JMA
even
<kym.nassbus.org/graphs/co2-berkustmax.gif> Berkley US maxtemp
--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].

Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.

Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".

Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

[JTEM]

Post by norm
Hasn't the world already had multiple life-extinguishing disasters?

Until they recently destroyed science, because it got in the
way of policy, nobody anywhere had ever claimed that a mass
extinction was caused by it getting warmer.

There were always claims that volcanic activity caused mass
extinction events... Google: Volcanic Winter

[Nadegda]

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster. As I write this, a
sequel to Helene is already in the works, potentially even worse.
Basically all of Florida is expected to get 100+ mm of *more* rain, in
addition to the storm surge and wind damage that will occur near the
site of landfall.
I tried to warn everyone. I've been doing so for years now. Will this,
finally, be enough to get some of your heads out of the sand, koOks?

Of course not. But another resounding defeat for Trump at the polls just
might make 'em sit up and take notice.

On the other hand, a Trump victory assures doom for the whole planet,
whether through climate catastrophe or through war.

If you are an eligible American citizen, VOTE! Vote Harris/Walz and
downballot Dems like your life depends on it.

Because it most likely does.

[Tard Wrangler]

Once upon a time, on or about Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:09:44 -0000 (UTC),
Nadegda allegedly stated the following, and is solely responsible for

Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster. As I write this, a
sequel to Helene is already in the works, potentially even worse.
Basically all of Florida is expected to get 100+ mm of *more* rain, in
addition to the storm surge and wind damage that will occur near the
site of landfall.
I tried to warn everyone. I've been doing so for years now. Will this,
finally, be enough to get some of your heads out of the sand, koOks?

Of course not. But another resounding defeat for Trump at the polls just
might make 'em sit up and take notice.
On the other hand, a Trump victory assures doom for the whole planet,
whether through climate catastrophe or through war.
If you are an eligible American citizen, VOTE! Vote Harris/Walz and
downballot Dems like your life depends on it.
Because it most likely does.

I can almost smell your fear.

[kazu]

Post by Tard Wrangler
Once upon a time, on or about Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:09:44 -0000 (UTC),
Nadegda allegedly stated the following, and is solely responsible for

Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Post by kensi
Events like Hurricane Helene are now occurring in a climate that has
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/07/Future-Named-Helene/
We are racing pell-mell toward worldwide disaster. As I write this, a
sequel to Helene is already in the works, potentially even worse.
Basically all of Florida is expected to get 100+ mm of *more* rain, in
addition to the storm surge and wind damage that will occur near the
site of landfall.
I tried to warn everyone. I've been doing so for years now. Will this,
finally, be enough to get some of your heads out of the sand, koOks?

Of course not. But another resounding defeat for Trump at the polls just
might make 'em sit up and take notice.
On the other hand, a Trump victory assures doom for the whole planet,
whether through climate catastrophe or through war.
If you are an eligible American citizen, VOTE! Vote Harris/Walz and
downballot Dems like your life depends on it.
Because it most likely does.

I can almost smell your fear.

does it smell like victory?