Most likely yes. Why do you ask?
What is the normal amount of warmth? i.e. when was the last year or range of years in which most of the Earth was NOT abnormally warm?
Do you agree that this chart gives a reasonably accurate record of global sea ice from 1979 to the present?
This explanation does not mention water vapor feedback. What is your position on water vapor feedback?
So, you don’t even understand my stance, but you accurately described it? :roll eyes:
Even if that were true, how does this apply to this thread on climate change? You really have no clue about how lame you are. But I guess that’s unsurprising.
Well, that dolt that goes by the name of Chucklehead, I mean Lobohan, claimed in Post 2251 that you and FX were two posters who believed that man played no role in climate change. That you two should be included in the .02% offered my Mr. Dibble.
Chucklehead and others have been trying to erase any nuance from the minority opinion here and make it: either you agree with the likes of he and GIGO, or you are a(cue horror film music) DENIER.
Let’s see now if he is able to admit his error. And then maybe Mr. Dibble can attempt to explain the relevance of his post that led Chucklehead to his latest error.
He also threw in the fillip about how “they don’t answer when asked directly”, which (a) isn’t true here, but (b) is often true of folks who predict dire consequences in general but don’t offer specifics when pressed. That’s some mighty fine projection.
I wasn’t aware of that since I generally do not read Lobohan’s posts anymore. But I’m not surprised to find out he is a liar and an idiot to boot.
Well what exactly would one agree or disagree with? Has either of them ever concisely spelled out his position? I doubt it. It’s pretty much impossible to get GIGOBuster to answer a simple, reasonable, yes or no question about his position. Probably the same is true about Lobohan.
So true. And add to that list John_Stamos’_Left_Ear. One question to him asking him to clarify a claim he made turned him into the invisible man, never to be seen again. Chucklehead really has nothing to offer other than snark and commentary from the peanut gallery, so I don’t expect anything from him other than that, and lies.
Fear Itself is a bit like that too:
[crickets chirping]
Like so many things involving human beings, it’s going to be both. For the natural world, the mythical place with no human beings, it’s still going to be both. As some species and plants will benefit, while others will suffer.
But this is true of natural events as well, so a value judgement on such issues is impossible, from a global perspective.
Of course some benefits will accrue. Toronto will be more livable, for one.
But because of sea level rise and increased fresh water consumption, I don’t see a uniformly rosy picture.
Waldo, I think you have a flawed view of the situation.
As far as I can tell, FX and Brazil haven’t answered that question until now. If they did, I missed it, and I’ll certainly agree that FX has made a stand. I still have no idea what Brazil thinks, because he’s so invested in being a Socratic-cock hole that he isn’t likely to clearly state it.
The trouble is that FX is such a profoundly bad communicator, because of his interleaving snark, sarcasm and rabid mania, that it’s difficult to get a read on his position.
Now mind you, FX is still a nutjob. But it’s at least nice to know his position amid the chaos he spews.
As for your weird accusation of projection, my greatest fear about climate change is rising sea levels. Land based ice melting is accelerating, and in my mind could cause huge amounts of human misery. Displaced populations will have to be absorbed, and that sort of thing leads to conflict.
I’m sure I’ve said similar before, and all anyone would have to do is ask me. In fact, Brazil attempted a gotcha about, “What does global warming mean?” and I answered him.
I only lie to spare people’s feelings. I’m an open book. Ask what you’d like.
I’ve answered you directly. The link is here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031702&postcount=1505
And I did see that you agree that the world is most likely warming due to human action. Good, nice to know that you do.
A further question: Do you think that the warming is likely to cause significant sea-level rising?
Not if the current trend continues. Brutal long winters do not make a place more “livable”, for whatever that even means. The February trend shows clearly that the latest winter isn’t an anomaly, but part of a trend. (you can also see the few little grid cells nearby that show warming. How does that even happen?)
Shortly before this post of yours – just upthread, here on the same page – he replied, when asked, “Most likely yes. Why do you ask?” Since you still have no idea what he thinks, it’s hardly a shock that FX’s position escaped your notice before now.
I’ve seen plenty of folks predict climatic doom-n-gloom in general but back away from making specific-to-the-point-of-falsifiable predictions in particular when asked. To see two individuals (a) get called out for that sort of behavior, but (b) promptly illustrate that, no, you’re naming the wrong people; you want the ones on the other side puts that in sharp relief.
Indeed, you may well be One Of The Good Ones; pray tell me: if you’re correct, then what amount of sea-level rise do you predict by when? “We’ll see at least X in the next Y years” would be perfectly satisfactory.
FX has already put together his response, based on “Science!”
Oh, good heavens, that’s adorable.
We’re told that risks are said to increase to “very high” with a 2C rise in temperatures. We’re told that crop yields are imperiled, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%. We’re told that, in some parts of the tropics and in Antarctica, potential catches could decline by more than 50%. Oh, and also: There are concerns raised over migration linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security.
What, hypothetically, could prove that false?
I have no idea.
If, in decades yet to come, the catches in some parts of the tropics decline by less than 50% – perhaps less than 10%, perhaps not at all – then can we say the predictions were dead wrong? If the crop yields are down by 5%, or up by 15%, then what? What’s been ruled out?
Even if the risks never actually materialize, the I-Told-You-So brigade can of course still say The-Risks-Were-Very-High; what could ever prove them wrong? After 2050, the risk of more severe yield impacts increases, they say, because of course they do, because we could never look back and say You-Got-That-Wrong.
There are concerns raised over migration linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security. Could that claim even hypothetically be incorrect?
(But give 'em credit for this gem: People will be affected by flooding and heat related mortality. I tell ya: if three people are affected by flooding, and two drop from heat-related mortality, then AFAICT the article’s predictions are on solid ground.)
You’ll note that I addressed it after I read his post. Maybe you should take a bit of your own medicine, dipshit.
If you’ve seen FX and Brazil post, they often throw out gibberish. If they’ve said specifically before this that they believed the Earth was warming as a result of man, it wasn’t clearly and often, I assure you.
You’re an imbecile. I’m not a climate scientist. My predictions don’t mean anything. Just like your chuckle-fuck denials don’t mean anything. You, and I are alike in that we don’t understand the issue enough to make reasonable proclamations.
I trust the scientific community and accept the consensus of experts. You appear to be Dunning-Krugering yourself.
You admitted it about FX while still castigating Brazil. That you were still getting the latter wrong may well explain why it took you so long to get the former right.
They did just fine shortly before the post where you got one right and one wrong. Since you proved incapable of reading Brazil’s clear post here and now, I can’t say I have much confidence that you’ve read either of 'em well before.
Wow, that’s great follow-up to “I’m sure I’ve said similar before, and all anyone would have to do is ask me.”
Look, I appreciate that – as you say – your predictions don’t mean anything, and you don’t understand the issue enough to make reasonable proclamations. If you feel that way, that’s fine; I’d be equally happy if you relay the predictions and proclamations of someone you trust. Go right ahead. Whenever you’re ready.
You (a) don’t understand enough to make reasonable proclamations about the issue at hand, but (b) do feel confident enough to expound on Dunning-Kruger? Hmm.
Well, since you’ve already been wrong about FX and Brazil, it’d be no surprise if you’re wrong about me as well: for all you know, I requested the specifics of your favorite predictions – whether made by you, or made by experts and relayed by you – to accept them as you have. We’ll never know unless you produce them. Can you?