There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 444]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Has nothing to do with the arguments.

It's a simple question.

Then no, if I was I wasn't following.  Nanothermite?  Can I get some of what that person was smoking?

I have only used/made regular thermite.  

Edited January 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 220]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Then no, if I was I wasn't following.  Nanothermite?  Can I get some of what that person was smoking?

I have only used/made regular thermite.  

The argument tactics are similar.  

The similarity of the steadfastness in the face of, and despite everyone else trying to help is uncanny.

[brenthutch 444]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

The argument tactics are similar.  

The similarity of the steadfastness in the face of, and despite everyone else trying to help is uncanny.

I'm still waiting for some one to let me know what level of atmospheric CO2 results in a stable and predictable climate.  

[brenthutch 444]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The argument tactics are similar.  

The similarity of the steadfastness in the face of, and despite everyone else trying to help is uncanny.

If you are trying to compare me to Charles Darwin, Galileo or John Scopes, I feel honored.

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 Am still waiting for the evidence that at 280ppm CO2 the weather was stable and predictable.  According to your graph, the "little ice age" occurred when CO2 was at 280ppm. 

"The Little Ice Age is best known for frequent cold winters and cool, wet summers that led to crop failures and famines"

Yep.  And you want to force a bigger climate change at 20x the speed.  What could go wrong?

[billvon 2,990]

Just now, brenthutch said:

If you are trying to compare me to Charles Darwin, Galileo or John Scopes, I feel honored.

You might as well skip straight to "they laughed at Einstein, too!"

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

You might as well skip straight to "they laughed at Einstein, too!"

Well that would just be too presumptuous. 

[brenthutch 444]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And you want to force a bigger climate change at 20x the speed.  What could go wrong?

A better question is "what IS  going wrong" 

Fewer climate related deaths?  More global food production?  Fewer global wildfires?  On and on...……….

If things are getting better at a 20x climate change, why wouldn't a sane person want a 40x climate change?

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Little Ice Age (at 280ppm CO2) was a better climate than the balmy conditions we now have.

BTW, still waiting for Aonnoying (sp?) to respond

Edited January 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

A better question is "what IS  going wrong" 

Fewer climate related deaths?  More global food production?  Fewer global wildfires?  On and on...……….

If things are getting better at a 20x climate change, why wouldn't a sane person want a 40x climate change?

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Little Ice Age (at 280ppm CO2) was a better climate than the balmy conditions we now have.

BTW, still waiting for Aonnoying (sp?) to respond

Not going to waste my time. Since you don't even understand the TITLES of papers you reference to, have extremely sloppy and contradictory arguments, exhibit no understanding of statistics, mathematics, or basic science, why should I do your work for you? Even if I did provide an example, you wouldn't understand its implications.

Stop your lazy googling and go back to school.

[DJL 235]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

CO2 enables plants to retain more water, plants with more water are less combustible than plants with less water.  It's common sense.

Yet the proof you provided for why there are fewer wildfires doesn't support that and says it's because we're farming more land.  Also, while plants may swell with water when there's rain, that doesn't mean it's so much that they hold onto it through the high temp summer months during which these fires are happening.

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, DJL said:

Yet the proof you provided for why there are fewer wildfires doesn't support that and says it's because we're farming more land.  Also, while plants may swell with water when there's rain, that doesn't mean it's so much that they hold onto it through the high temp summer months during which these fires are happening.

He misunderstood every single one of his links, and they're just abstracts.

[brenthutch 444]

7 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Not going to waste my time. Since you don't even understand the TITLES of papers you reference to, have extremely sloppy and contradictory arguments, exhibit no understanding of statistics, mathematics, or basic science, why should I do your work for you? Even if I did provide an example, you wouldn't understand its implications.

Stop your lazy googling and go back to school.

AKA "I can't back my claims up, so I will run away"

I will give you one more chance.

You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past. 

(the best thing for you to do now is to admit you were wrong and just move on)

 

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

AKA "I can't back my claims up, so I will run away"

I will give you one more chance.

You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past. 

(the best thing for you to do now is to admit you were wrong and just move on)

 

Oh, I would LOVE to be wrong. Really, seriously I wish I was wrong.

But you don't even know what "stability" means. You don't know statistics, probability, or logic. I've proven your points contradictory and hypocritical again and again. So far you've admitted only the most glaring one when you had no other escape.

Go and respond to DJL, because you're wrong there as well.

[brenthutch 444]

On 1/13/2020 at 11:33 AM, SkyDekker said:

Ah you think anecdotes from newspapers is the same as data and study. Can't say I am overly surprised.

 

(never mind that some of those articles are pretty questionable.)

How about this one

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/06/peter-ridd-awarded-12m-in-unfair-dismissal-case-against-james-cook-university

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How about this one

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/06/peter-ridd-awarded-12m-in-unfair-dismissal-case-against-james-cook-university

Skydekker criticizes your dependence on newspaper articles instead of data and study, and you respond with another newspaper article?

You are a special kind of ... and you wonder why I don't waste my time arguing.

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

But you don't even know what "stability" means.

As English is not your native tongue I will give you a little help.

stability

noun

 

sta·bil·i·ty | \ stə-ˈbi-lə-tē \

plural stabilities

Definition of stability

 

1 : the quality, state, or degree of being stable: such as

a : the strength to stand or endure : firmness

b : the property of a body that causes it when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition

c : resistance to chemical change or to physical disintegration

Now with that out of the way, I ask again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 would we have a stable climate.

I thing you provided a few examples about how ski resorts could count on snow and farmers could count on rain.  

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

Wow...it can google word definitions

No, you still don't know what it means in scientific terms.

Try again. Go back to school for a few years, then maybe we can talk.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Skydekker criticizes your dependence on newspaper articles instead of data and study, and you respond with another newspaper article?

You are a special kind of ... and you wonder why I don't waste my time arguing.

you need to go back and read the rest of the thread, some one claimed if some scientist could disprove AGW he would be rich and famous.  As it turns out kalend was right, Peter Ridd is now a millionaire.

[wmw999 2,439]

2 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You are a special kind of ... and you wonder why I don't waste my time arguing.

"Ignore" doesn't only happen with a button. I'd always wondered about that quote about wrestling with pigs, and it turns out George Bernard Shaw (one of my favorite playwrights) popularized it:

Quote

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

Wendy P.

[aonsquared 9]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

you need to go back and read the rest of the thread, some one claimed if some scientist could disprove AGW he would be rich and famous.  As it turns out kalend was right, Peter Ridd is now a millionaire.

You do that, go get rich.

[brenthutch 444]

Uh, I kind of did that already, retired at 50.

[DJL 235]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past. 

Pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 would be the ultimate goal but we'll likely only get to an 1850's to 1900's level and have to live with that.  The predictability we're looking for doesn't mean and perfect spread of weather but an end to a feedback loop.  The benchmark for stability is zero change in Artic Sea Ice and Ocean temps on average on the scale of decades.  We know there will be variability in the short term.

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

Pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 would be the ultimate goal but we'll likely only get to an 1850's to 1900's level and have to live with that.  The predictability we're looking for doesn't mean and perfect spread of weather but an end to a feedback loop.  The benchmark for stability is zero change in Artic Sea Ice and Ocean temps on average on the scale of decades.  We know there will be variability in the short term.

They are variable in the long term as well, the temperatures and seas were much higher 7000 years ago and the and the temperatures and seas were much lower 500 years ago.  We had mega droughts, massive content burning wildfires, floods that killed tens of thousands, 6000 years ago the Sahara was a lush tropical grassland now it is one of the driest places on earth, all with preindustrial levels of CO2.  Please don't tell me that there is (or ever was) anything "stable" and "predicable" about our climate.

[aonsquared 9]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, I kind of did that already, retired at 50.

Go back to school then

[brenthutch 444]

Just now, aonsquared said:

Go back to school then

I'm already taking YOU to school.

BTW don't you have a laser to play with somewhere?