Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever

[RickBradford]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As for "denialist" it means someone who either denies global warming is due to human activity or  denies that global warming is even occurring. You got a problem with that?

The obvious problem with that is that it's so vague as to be utterly meaningless. That may be deliberate, of course.

 

What does "global warming is due to human activity" mean? 'Nothing', is the short answer.

 

Completely due? Due to any extent? Partly due? What's your cut-off point?

 

It seems more plausible that you apply the label "denialist" to anyone who doesn't the view the climate debate as a chance to attack "colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression", as Greta puts it.

 

Or do you not agree with her formulation of the problem?

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

       Warming 0.85 degree between 1880 - 2012 following the L.I.A. (yes, it was world wide. There was no wall blocking Europe off for 550 years like some claim) throws uneducated people, the easily fooled, and Socialists/Marxist-Leninists into a tizzy. 

     Funny.

I see. And the conclusion you reached about the medieval warm period and the little ice age being global came from that leading scientific journal called "Because I Said So"? Or was it from "The Journal of Making Things Up"?

And the research I cited that for last 2000 years that the only time warming has been virtually universal is the 4 years or so came from that insignificant journal called "Nature" which apparently the scientific community mistakenly considers one of the 2 most prestigious scientific journal on Planet Earth.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  

 

[sucit]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

The obvious problem with that is that it's so vague as to be utterly meaningless. That may be deliberate, of course.

 

What does "global warming is due to human activity" mean? 'Nothing', is the short answer.

 

Completely due? Due to any extent? Partly due? What's your cut-off point?

 

It seems more plausible that you apply the label "denialist" to anyone who doesn't the view the climate debate as a chance to attack "colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression", as Greta puts it.

 

Or do you not agree with her formulation of the problem?

Denialist is someone who refuses to believe something exists, even as it rests right there in front of them in plain sight. 

 

There were evolution denialists too. Interestingly, you do not hear from them much any longer. I suspect the same will be true of the climate change denialists.

 

Even Exxonmobile has acknowledged climate change. It does not get much clearer than that... the corporations that funded and created the denialist movement are not even in denial any longer!

 

Denialists are like an army marching into battle with their leader and commander shouting "retreat". Trained so well that even their leaders can no longer convince them of the truth. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by sucit

[thaicurious]

5 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

Your appeals to authority aside.

That's probably the funniest, saddest, most pathetic thing I've read on this forum today.

 

Falsely claiming a fallacy simply is a lie.

 

Citing the science that stands on plethora of supporting evidence is not appeal to authority.

 

Claiming appeal to authority in misusing data is disgusting deception, unworthy of consideration.

 

2 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

I hope that the denialists don't have children or if they do they tell them that they think climate change is a hoax. Then in the future their children can remember that they were part of the problem. They were som of the ignorant who watched a couple of TV shows and thought they knew best. Their ignorance can be seen on their posts on here. Just spreading lies with false statistics and misinformation. When presented with facts they just keep their heads in the sand.

There was a story or joke years ago about self-entitled hotel guests. I forget how to lay it out but the end snippy line was "YOUR lack of planning is not MY emergency."

 

My older brother is still working his ass off to assure his children's future. One nephew will need the help. My other nephew and niece are hard working too but we can see they also will need the help given what we see happening to the world today.

 

I could look it up again but I think even the low ball, conservative figure is that before the end of my niece and nephews' lives, there will be a world wide migration away from flooding coasts of at least 600 million souls (& don't hold me to that figure but my memory is that that's close) which humanity has never before witnessed. What will that do to health, to food supplies, salt water intrusion into water supplies, to property rights, to all aspects of societies. Anyone who doesn't think that's scary or not a big deal because weather has changed before, yeah, has their sociopathic head in the sand.

 

But it is not enough to just be scared. It is not enough to just deny deny deny, not even enough to plan for the worst. If we can at least slow down the heating, if we can give technology the opportunity, time, to find ways to fix this, there will be a lot less pain later after we are dead.

 

Even if we can not stop all the pending pain, probably we can work towards reducing suffering. That ought always be our goal.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The obvious problem with that is that it's so vague as to be utterly meaningless. That may be deliberate, of course.

 

What does "global warming is due to human activity" mean? 'Nothing', is the short answer.

 

Completely due? Due to any extent? Partly due? What's your cut-off point?

 

It seems more plausible that you apply the label "denialist" to anyone who doesn't the view the climate debate as a chance to attack "colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression", as Greta puts it.

 

Or do you not agree with her formulation of the problem?

Maybe if you hadn't been living on planet Earth for the past 20 years, you might possibly not know what "global warming due to human activity" means, but for those of us resident earthlings the meaning is pretty clear. It's about those who deny that the generation of greenhouse gases by human activity is making the global climate significantly and perilously warmer. 

And your attempted deflection by linking me to an invocation of "colonialist, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression" is so low as to merit nothing but a richly deserved contempt. It reeks of desperation.

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's about those who deny that the generation of greenhouse gases by human activity is making the global climate significantly and perilously warmer. 

I note, not for the first time, that logic is not one of your closest acquaintances. 

 

There is a world of difference between human activity being responsible for a small amount of extra warming, and being responsible for almost all of it; the difference, say, between 10% and 90%. The policy responses and their timing would be quite different.

 

So I ask you again. What is your cut-off point? When does some become, in your terms, a "denialist". If they believe that human activity is the cause of only 20% of warming? 40%? None of it? All of it?

[balo]

On 2/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, bristolboy said:

The most popular alternate explanation is solar activity. The greater the solar activity, the greater the warming.  But the fact is, solar activity has been in decline and the current cycle shows the lowest level of sunspot activity in a 100 years.

As an old HAM radio operator I find this fascinating. Back in the 1980's and 90's I was always in a good mood when the solar spots went to maximum around every 11th year. Because the radio propagation peaked and you could communicate with almost any country in the world with the right antenna.  

The 11 year cycle is well known since we started to study the sun back in the 17th century.
But this time its different. Cycle 24 started in 2008 and the peak reached 99 sun spots in 2011, and then we had another peak in 2014. But never before have we seen so few sun spots since we started studying the sun. 
Cycle 24 will end this year, and then the predictions are the sun spot activity will continue to be very low, with a maximum peak in 2025.

So does solar activity affect the global climate?  Yes, the scientists seem to agree on that but they are not sure how much. 
But we have seen a dramatic change in the climate several places on this planet after 2010, and with no activity on the sun I wonder if there is a connection. 

To test the theory about sun spots , I want you to remember year 2025, if we have enough sun spot numbers, will the winters suddenly start getting colder again and we'll have more "normal" weather conditions? 

Only time will tell. 
   

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by balo

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I note, not for the first time, that logic is not one of your closest acquaintances. 

 

There is a world of difference between human activity being responsible for a small amount of extra warming, and being responsible for almost all of it; the difference, say, between 10% and 90%. The policy responses and their timing would be quite different.

 

So I ask you again. What is your cut-off point? When does some become, in your terms, a "denialist". If they believe that human activity is the cause of only 20% of warming? 40%? None of it? All of it?

As I've pointed out before, your attribution of a very small percent of global warming to greenhouse gases is like saying a drop of alcohol in a liter of water makes it vodka. It's just a ruse to avoid being labelled a denialist while effectively being one. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that greenhouse gases are responsible for most if not all current global warming. 

 

[tifino]

On 2/8/2020 at 9:36 PM, jany123 said:

On 2/8/2020 at 10:40 AM, rooster59 said:

This would see an eventual global sea level rise of at least three meters (10 feet) over centuries.

Stupid blurry comment.... how am I supposed to use that to calculate when my property will have beach front appeal?

well... just think like a Real Estate agent... a new huge estate opens up, and it's next to a swamp.

They realise the swamp can't simply be drained and hidden (economically), so what do they do?

 - label it a lake, and it becomes a selling point to the unwary! 

 - "ah! but look at the views!"

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, balo said:

As an old HAM radio operator I find this fascinating. Back in the 1980's and 90's I was always in a good mood when the solar spots went to maximum around every 11th year. Because the radio propagation peaked and you could communicate with almost any country in the world with the right antenna.  

The 11 year cycle is well known since we started to study the sun back in the 17th century.
But this time its different. Cycle 24 started in 2008 and the peak reached 99 sun spots in 2011, and then we had another peak in 2014. But never before have we seen so few sun spots since we started studying the sun. 
Cycle 24 will end this year, and then the predictions are the sun spot activity will continue to be very low, with a maximum peak in 2025.

So does solar activity affect the global climate?  Yes, the scientists seem to agree on that but they are not sure how much. 
But we have seen a dramatic change in the climate several places on this planet after 2010, and with no activity on the sun I wonder if there is a connection. 

To test the theory about sun spots , I want you to remember year 2025, if we have enough sun spot numbers, will the winters suddenly start getting colder again and we'll have more "normal" weather conditions? 

Only time will tell. 
   

 

Actually, if there is a connection, it runs exactly the other way. The correlation has been the less solar activity there is, the lower the global temperature. So, if anything, this extremely low level of solar activity means that there should be global cooling, not warming. Which only strengthens the case for greenhouse gases fueling the current rise in temperature.

[Saint Nick]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:42 PM, Crazy Alex said:

Let's take your post at face value. Life on Earth has flourished with CO2 levels about 1,000 ppm. The Cretaceous Period is an example. And as noted, these levels have gone up and down without human intervention.

You are aware, that Earth has been a vastly different place in the Cretaceousm aren't you?

 

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As I've pointed out before, your attribution of a very small percent of global warming to greenhouse gases is like saying a drop of alcohol in a liter of water makes it vodka. It's just a ruse to avoid being labelled a denialist while effectively being one. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that greenhouse gases are responsible for most if not all current global warming. 

 

I have never attributed a "very small percent of global warming to greenhouse gases." You made that up, as usual.

 

It's as I thought. Your use of "denialist" is just another fact-free scattergun insult, with no more utility than Greta's Klimate Klub rants against colonialism, patriarchal oppression and "crimes against humanity."

[Catoni]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As I've pointed out before, your attribution of a very small percent of global warming to greenhouse gases is like saying a drop of alcohol in a liter of water makes it vodka. It's just a ruse to avoid being labelled a denialist while effectively being one. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that greenhouse gases are responsible for most if not all current global warming. 

 

Science is NOT done by consensus. If it is...then it’s not science. But it COULD be political.

    When I was in elementary school back in the 1950’s it was still world “Scientific Consensus” that the continents were fixed in place and do not move. 

    Our teachers still taught us that the continents did not move. It was only “coincidence” that a few of the continents looked like they might have fit together at some time.

    Dr. Alfred Wegener used to get laughed out of the lecture halls and found it next to impossible to get published. He was considered a whacko pariah.

    Sadly he died long before it was discovered in the late 1950’s - early  1960’s that he had been right all along. Today, we know about “continental drift...plate tectonics”

 

        It used to be the “Scientific Consensus” that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. Anyone claiming different was considered to be an idiot.

  Then in the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium “H. pylori” caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel prize in 2005.

    There are many many more examples if you care to search.

    Science is not done by consensus. If it’s science...it’s not consensus.

If it’s consensus...it’s not science. 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Catoni
Correction

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

You are aware, that Earth has been a vastly different place in the Cretaceousm aren't you?

 

  Earth changes.... are you aware that we are in an Ice Age right now? 

   We are in a pleasant nice warm Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during the current Quaternary glaciation Ice Age that began about 2.6 million years ago. 

    You should be happy that we are not in a Glacial Period. They usually last for 80,000 - 130,000 years. 

   Warm Interglacial Periods like we are in now only last about 15,000 - 30,000 years. 

And we’re already about 10,000 - 15,000 years into this one. So enjoy it while it lasts. Consider yourself very fortunate to be living in a warmer time. 

    But still we are in an Ice Age. 

Do you know the difference between Glacial Periods and Ice Ages? I doubt it.

   You’d better hope that we can keep it warm to prevent the next Glacial Period. We are moving through time towards it. The day will arrive when the world gets much colder, and next Glacial Period begins to advance. Hope we can prevent it. But not with those who want to make the planet cooler right now. 

    Or do you want to see many of our great cities flattened by vast ice sheets, sea level 400 feet lower exposing the continental shelves, and billions dead? 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Catoni
Correction

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

If it’s science...it’s not consensus.

If it’s consensus...it’s not science. 

 

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely. Scientific consensus is actually a thing. Manufacturing your own definition and putting it to a jingle doesn't change that.

 

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

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

 

Consensus is achieved through communication at  conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. 

 

"Three different studies, using three different methods all found overwhelming scientific agreement (~97%)...virtually every scientific organization ... has endorsed the concensus ... (regardless of social diversity) ... Not a single academy of science in the world has rejected the consensus" 

 

"Science isn't based on a show of hands. It is based on evidence...Scientists call this a Consilience of Evidence (or a Consensus of Evidence)"

[tifino]

1 minute ago, thaicurious said:

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

If it’s science...it’s not consensus.

If it’s consensus...it’s not science. 

 

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely. Scientific consensus is actually a thing. Manufacturing your own definition and putting it to a jingle doesn't change that.

yes but this is all about melting Greenies hearts

[thaicurious]

4 minutes ago, tifino said:

yes but this is all about melting Greenies hearts

The bottomless altruism of the alt-right. (We'd rather they put some pants on).

Edited February 12, 2020 by thaicurious

[RickBradford]

33 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely.

I'm guessing that the history of science is not even a passing acquaintance of yours.

 

The folly of relying on consensus has been laid out by numerous scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein and Richard Feynman, for starters.

 

I rather like Michael Crichton's take on consensus:

 

Quote

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

 

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, thaicurious said:

 

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely. Scientific consensus is actually a thing. Manufacturing your own definition and putting it to a jingle doesn't change that.

 

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

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

 

Consensus is achieved through communication at  conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. 

 

"Three different studies, using three different methods all found overwhelming scientific agreement (~97%)...virtually every scientific organization ... has endorsed the concensus ... (regardless of social diversity) ... Not a single academy of science in the world has rejected the consensus" 

 

"Science isn't based on a show of hands. It is based on evidence...Scientists call this a Consilience of Evidence (or a Consensus of Evidence)"

Yep....you said it. Just like the “scientific consensus” that the continents were fixed in place and do not move.

   They laughed at Dr. Wegener.

 

   And peptic ulcers are caused by stress. 

  Okay....whatever you say. 

[thaicurious]

42 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I'm guessing that the history of science is not even a passing acquaintance of yours.

 

The folly of relying on consensus has been laid out by numerous scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein and Richard Feynman, for starters.

 

I rather like Michael Crichton's take on consensus:

 

 

 

LOL

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/scientific-consensus-has-gotten-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/

Consensus? It's complicated and does not involve A) everyone agreeing or B) everyone meeting for coffee.

 

Fiction author Michael Crichton probably started the backlash against the idea of consensus in science. Crichton was rather notable for doubting the conclusions of climate scientists—he wrote an entire book in which they were the villains—so it's fair to say he wasn't thrilled when the field reached a consensus. Still, it's worth looking at what he said, if only because it's so painfully misguided:

[thaibeachlovers]

That the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula has registered a higher than normal, though still low, temperature worries me not at all. Those of us that lived and worked in Antarctica proper called the peninsula "the banana belt" as it was so warm in comparison.

 

Worth remembering that the bit of land Scott Base is on is called Pram Point, because when the Norwegians visited between 1901 and 1904 the sea ice at that point had gone out, which to me indicates a warm summer. When I was there the sea ice did not go out, and the only reason ships could reach McMurdo was because of icebreakers.

Even when Scott went on his first expedition, the sea ice broke out as far as McMurdo. On his second expedition, he was only able to anchor at Cape Evans, a long way north.

Sea ice breaking out means nothing, far as I'm concerned, as it varies from year to year.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, thaicurious said:

 

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely. Scientific consensus is actually a thing. Manufacturing your own definition and putting it to a jingle doesn't change that.

 

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

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

 

Consensus is achieved through communication at  conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. 

 

"Three different studies, using three different methods all found overwhelming scientific agreement (~97%)...virtually every scientific organization ... has endorsed the concensus ... (regardless of social diversity) ... Not a single academy of science in the world has rejected the consensus" 

 

"Science isn't based on a show of hands. It is based on evidence...Scientists call this a Consilience of Evidence (or a Consensus of Evidence)"

“...deceptive, more likely.”

     You want deception? Just look at the leftist socialist Marxist Global Warming/Climate Change/Emergency Alarmist cult.

    There’s deception for you.

 

Quote:   Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects.“

- The Right Honorable Lady Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister Of England 

 

 

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

Edited February 12, 2020 by Catoni
Addition

[thaicurious]

30 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Yep....you said it. Just like the “scientific consensus” that the continents were fixed in place and do not move.

   They laughed at Dr. Wegener.

 

   And peptic ulcers are caused by stress. 

  Okay....whatever you say. 

 

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). 

 

Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

 

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

 

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time....

[thaicurious]

7 minutes ago, Catoni said:

“...deceptive, more likely.”

     You want deception? Just look at the leftist socialist Marxist Global Warming/Climate Change/Emergency Alarmist cult.

    There’s deception for you. 

Science is not politics.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by thaicurious

[Catoni]

11 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Science is not politics.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

“Science is not politics” 555

 

And yet all the solutions for your “global warming/Climate Emergency” do indeed involve total politics. And in a massive authoritarian dictatorial extreme socialist fashion. 

    Thank you for making me laugh so much today. And do have a nice day also....comrade.

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

I'm guessing that the history of science is not even a passing acquaintance of yours.

 

The folly of relying on consensus has been laid out by numerous scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein and Richard Feynman, for starters.

 

I rather like Michael Crichton's take on consensus:

 

 

Comments like this reveal a basic misunderstanding of probability/statistics.  This is exactly like telling someone he's a fool for not betting his entire savings on the lottery since so and so did that and won 20 million dollars.

Yes, there are very rarely revolutions in scientific understanding. But as you apparently don't understand, the odds are massively against denialism being one of them.

 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, thaicurious said:

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

If it’s science...it’s not consensus.

If it’s consensus...it’s not science. 

That bumper sticker is utter nonsense not worth reading even if in your own head you thought it was poetically proposed & meaningful. It has a lovely ring to it-were you drunk?--but it is meaningless at best, deceptive, more likely. Scientific consensus is actually a thing. Manufacturing your own definition and putting it to a jingle doesn't change that.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.  You MUST doubt the experts.

 

As far as I know consensus just means agreement.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I have never attributed a "very small percent of global warming to greenhouse gases." You made that up, as usual.

 

It's as I thought. Your use of "denialist" is just another fact-free scattergun insult, with no more utility than Greta's Klimate Klub rants against colonialism, patriarchal oppression and "crimes against humanity."

True. You consistently raise the possibliity that it's very small but every time I asked you to come up with a percentage, you've ignored the question. Why so coy? Unless of course, you've got something to hide.

Edited February 12, 2020 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

49 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Fiction author Michael Crichton probably started the backlash against the idea of consensus in science.

You may not be aware that Copernicus, Galileo, and Isaac Newton all predate Mr. Crichton by several hundred years.

 

As Copernicus put it: “Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”

 

In fact, he did make that assertion in 1543, and nobody took much notice for 60 years, all the scientists of the day endorsing the consensus of Ptolemy's assertion that the earth was at the center of the heavens.