Is climate change ruining the London Olympics

[Trakar]

No, it's just weather. Everything else is just hype and fear-mongering.

And no, world socialism will NOT save us.

Those are your boogeymen and denialist pacifiers, intelligent consideration and discussion does not require such tropes.

Uh huh. Might want to tell that to all the "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" screechers (like Roxy).

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

 

[daveman]

In other words, we both seek reputable sources for our information.

No, you seek confirmational bias for your catechism.

Another one who keeps scaring themselves by seeing their own reflection in their computer monitor,...

Hint: It's not me trying to frighten people into supporting his agenda, Skippy.

 

[daveman]

Those are your boogeymen and denialist pacifiers, intelligent consideration and discussion does not require such tropes.

Uh huh. Might want to tell that to all the "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" screechers (like Roxy).

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230503-a-real-alarmist-viewpoint.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/217042-temperature-predictions-for-2012-2013-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/188454-impacts-of-arctic-thaw.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/192259-paying-the-price-agw-and-canada.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/183685-permafrost-not-so-permanent-anymore.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/166274-predictions.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/170504-from-downunder.html.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160605-all-downhill-from-here.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/155674-precipitation-and-global-warming.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/137538-a-2-degree-rise-is-not-safe.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/136282-planning-for-the-inevitable.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/130256-as-predicted.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/113049-ocean-acidification.html

And there's plenty more.

 

[Trakar]

Uh huh. Might want to tell that to all the "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" screechers (like Roxy).

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

I don't see it, care to highlight and quote the phrase for me?

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230503-a-real-alarmist-viewpoint.html

again, I don't see the chicken little of your rhetoric -

I think that the estimate of the effects of the Arctic release are too high, but, given what we have already seen from the clathrates, something to consider.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/217042-temperature-predictions-for-2012-2013-a.html

This is strike three, as I still see no sign of outrageous claims or impending doom, but I'll give you one more just in case an of these were foul tips.

Temperature predictions for 2012, 2013
Anyone else care to counter this? Come on, coolers, here is your chance to oneup the warmers.

Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013

This exercise provides a very rough estimate for 2012 and 2013 annual average surface temperatures, with a number of caveats. If solar cycle 24 continues to develop as expected, and and if an El Niño cycle develops as expected, and if there are no major volcanoes or other major changes in aerosol emissions, then this method projects a possible annual temperature record in 2012, and a likely record in 2013. In fact, because we can be confident that 2013 will be at or near a solar cycle peak, and we know the CO2-caused warming will continue upwards, 2013 will probably break the surface temperature record even if it's a moderate La Niña year (again, assuming there are no volcanic eruptions or other significant unaccounted-for effects).

Note that Arthur Smith has done a similar analysis with very similar results, predicting a possible record in 2012 (also 0.65°C) and a likely record in 2013 (at 0.73°C without considering the ENSO influence).

Also note that this is my [Dana Nuccitelli - dana1981] personal prediction and is not representative of Skeptical Science as a whole. So, what's your prediction?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

well that's four swings and misses, if you come up with a specific instance of Old Rocks running around claiming "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" please quote and reference it as I just don't see it.

Extreme Weather 2011 Record Breaking - YouTube

 

[Trakar]

No, you seek confirmational bias for your catechism.

Another one who keeps scaring themselves by seeing their own reflection in their computer monitor,...

Hint: It's not me trying to frighten people into supporting his agenda, Skippy.

You aren't telling people that switching away from oil and coal will bring economic ruin and destitution to the nation? That switching away from coal and oil means going back to living in caves? seems to me you are, and have been, trying to use fear to push your political agenda.

 

[daveman]

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

I don't see it, care to highlight and quote the phrase for me?






again, I don't see the chicken little of your rhetoric -





This is strike three, as I still see no sign of outrageous claims or impending doom, but I'll give you one more just in case an of these were foul tips.

Temperature predictions for 2012, 2013
Anyone else care to counter this? Come on, coolers, here is your chance to oneup the warmers.

Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013

This exercise provides a very rough estimate for 2012 and 2013 annual average surface temperatures, with a number of caveats. If solar cycle 24 continues to develop as expected, and and if an El Niño cycle develops as expected, and if there are no major volcanoes or other major changes in aerosol emissions, then this method projects a possible annual temperature record in 2012, and a likely record in 2013. In fact, because we can be confident that 2013 will be at or near a solar cycle peak, and we know the CO2-caused warming will continue upwards, 2013 will probably break the surface temperature record even if it's a moderate La Niña year (again, assuming there are no volcanic eruptions or other significant unaccounted-for effects).

Note that Arthur Smith has done a similar analysis with very similar results, predicting a possible record in 2012 (also 0.65°C) and a likely record in 2013 (at 0.73°C without considering the ENSO influence).

Also note that this is my [Dana Nuccitelli - dana1981] personal prediction and is not representative of Skeptical Science as a whole. So, what's your prediction?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

well that's four swings and misses, if you come up with a specific instance of Old Rocks running around claiming "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" please quote and reference it as I just don't see it.

Extreme Weather 2011 Record Breaking - YouTube

My goodness, you're a literal-minded simpleton, aren't you?

You don't see Roxy fear-mongering because you don't want to. Besides, you engage in it yourself.

Sheer emotionalism. That's all you've got.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uh huh. Might want to tell that to all the "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" screechers (like Roxy).

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230503-a-real-alarmist-viewpoint.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/217042-temperature-predictions-for-2012-2013-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/188454-impacts-of-arctic-thaw.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/192259-paying-the-price-agw-and-canada.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/183685-permafrost-not-so-permanent-anymore.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/166274-predictions.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/170504-from-downunder.html.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160605-all-downhill-from-here.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/155674-precipitation-and-global-warming.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/137538-a-2-degree-rise-is-not-safe.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/136282-planning-for-the-inevitable.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/130256-as-predicted.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/113049-ocean-acidification.html

And there's plenty more.

Interesting. For in all of those threads, I was pointing out ongoing research, and, in some cases, predictions that scientists were doing.

Of particular interest is this one.

Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013

For you see, at the very time the denialists on this board were insisting that we were in a cooling period, the scientists, Foster and Rahmstorf, stated that by their mathematical analysis, 2012 should be a very hot year, and 2013 even more so. Thus far, their predictions have been correct.

Now Davey Boy, when you can actually contribute something that remotely indicates a reasonable intellect is posting, we will all be pleasantly surprised.

 

[daveman]

Another one who keeps scaring themselves by seeing their own reflection in their computer monitor,...

Hint: It's not me trying to frighten people into supporting his agenda, Skippy.

You aren't telling people that switching away from oil and coal will bring economic ruin and destitution to the nation? That switching away from coal and oil means going back to living in caves? seems to me you are, and have been, trying to use fear to push your political agenda.

Fear? No. Reality.

All the leftist good intentions in the world will not replace oil and coal. There is nothing on the horizon that's practical, scalable, and economical. Wind and solar? Nonsense. Most vehicles will never be able to have a practical electric version. Ever. Batteries can't and likely will never be able to match the energy density of hydrocarbons.

Plus, you can't make plastics and fertilizers out of wind and solar, can you?

This is reality. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable and causes you to lash out mindlessly.

 

[daveman]

Cite or reference? or merely one more example of hyperbole falsely asserted in strawman fashion?

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230503-a-real-alarmist-viewpoint.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/217042-temperature-predictions-for-2012-2013-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/188454-impacts-of-arctic-thaw.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/192259-paying-the-price-agw-and-canada.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/183685-permafrost-not-so-permanent-anymore.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/166274-predictions.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/170504-from-downunder.html.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160605-all-downhill-from-here.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/155674-precipitation-and-global-warming.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/137538-a-2-degree-rise-is-not-safe.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/136282-planning-for-the-inevitable.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/130256-as-predicted.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/113049-ocean-acidification.html

And there's plenty more.

Interesting. For in all of those threads, I was pointing out ongoing research, and, in some cases, predictions that scientists were doing.

Of particular interest is this one.

Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013

For you see, at the very time the denialists on this board were insisting that we were in a cooling period, the scientists, Foster and Rahmstorf, stated that by their mathematical analysis, 2012 should be a very hot year, and 2013 even more so. Thus far, their predictions have been correct.

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

An 83 foot rise in sea level? This isn't fear-mongering?

You're utterly delusional. Of course, to be an AGW cultist, you HAVE to be.

Now Davey Boy, when you can actually contribute something that remotely indicates a reasonable intellect is posting, we will all be pleasantly surprised.

You don't want discussion. You want immediate and unquestioning agreement and endorsement.

Anything else is "unreasonable" and "unintelligent".

Right? Be honest for once.

 

[Trakar]

Hint: It's not me trying to frighten people into supporting his agenda, Skippy.

You aren't telling people that switching away from oil and coal will bring economic ruin and destitution to the nation? That switching away from coal and oil means going back to living in caves? seems to me you are, and have been, trying to use fear to push your political agenda.

Fear? No. Reality

Reality is science based, and you reject science in favor of your ideological beliefs.

(snip of tired and unsupported tropisms regarding renewable energy)

Plus, you can't make plastics and fertilizers out of wind and solar, can you?

I have no problem with using carbon resources for the creation of plastics, they generally don't break down into environmentally active carbon. And fertilizers (NH3) can be made from air(Nitrogen) and water(hydrogen) requiring only energy to power the processes.

This is reality. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable and causes you to lash out mindlessly.

You are the only one looking crazed with speckles of you own foamed dementia splashed about yourself, now wipe your face and join your little friend oddball (these kids and their silly nicknames) back at the card table and let the adults talk and finish their coffee.

 

[daveman]

You aren't telling people that switching away from oil and coal will bring economic ruin and destitution to the nation? That switching away from coal and oil means going back to living in caves? seems to me you are, and have been, trying to use fear to push your political agenda.

Fear? No. Reality

Reality is science based, and you reject science in favor of your ideological beliefs.

(snip of tired and unsupported tropisms regarding renewable energy)

Plus, you can't make plastics and fertilizers out of wind and solar, can you?

I have no problem with using carbon resources for the creation of plastics, they generally don't break down into environmentally active carbon. And fertilizers (NH3) can be made from air(Nitrogen) and water(hydrogen) requiring only energy to power the processes.

This is reality. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable and causes you to lash out mindlessly.

You are the only one looking crazed with speckles of you own foamed dementia splashed about yourself, now wipe your face and join your little friend oddball (these kids and their silly nicknames) back at the card table and let the adults talk and finish their coffee.

Have you ever done anything to merit that level of arrogance? NOTE "Being a liberal" simply won't do.

Although I expect that's all you've got.

But you've made it abundantly clear your mind is closed. That's another trait of cultists.

 

[Old Rocks]

You shouldn't doubt me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/221696-how-far-have-we-already-gone.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230503-a-real-alarmist-viewpoint.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/217042-temperature-predictions-for-2012-2013-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/200658-extreme-weather-2011-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/188454-impacts-of-arctic-thaw.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/192259-paying-the-price-agw-and-canada.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/183685-permafrost-not-so-permanent-anymore.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/166274-predictions.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/170504-from-downunder.html.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160605-all-downhill-from-here.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/155674-precipitation-and-global-warming.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/137538-a-2-degree-rise-is-not-safe.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/136282-planning-for-the-inevitable.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/130256-as-predicted.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/113049-ocean-acidification.html

And there's plenty more.

Interesting. For in all of those threads, I was pointing out ongoing research, and, in some cases, predictions that scientists were doing.

Of particular interest is this one.

Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013

For you see, at the very time the denialists on this board were insisting that we were in a cooling period, the scientists, Foster and Rahmstorf, stated that by their mathematical analysis, 2012 should be a very hot year, and 2013 even more so. Thus far, their predictions have been correct.

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

An 83 foot rise in sea level? This isn't fear-mongering?

You're utterly delusional. Of course, to be an AGW cultist, you HAVE to be.

Now Davey Boy, when you can actually contribute something that remotely indicates a reasonable intellect is posting, we will all be pleasantly surprised.

You don't want discussion. You want immediate and unquestioning agreement and endorsement.

Anything else is "unreasonable" and "unintelligent".

Right? Be honest for once.

Now Davey Boy, you are such a silly ass. Had you read the article, you might have noticed the time frame, and what the basis of the predictions are. Then again, were you capable of reading with understanding, you would not be posting such silly twaddle.

 

[Trakar]

Fear? No. Reality

Reality is science based, and you reject science in favor of your ideological beliefs.

(snip of tired and unsupported tropisms regarding renewable energy)

I have no problem with using carbon resources for the creation of plastics, they generally don't break down into environmentally active carbon. And fertilizers (NH3) can be made from air(Nitrogen) and water(hydrogen) requiring only energy to power the processes.

This is reality. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable and causes you to lash out mindlessly.

You are the only one looking crazed with speckles of you own foamed dementia splashed about yourself, now wipe your face and join your little friend oddball (these kids and their silly nicknames) back at the card table and let the adults talk and finish their coffee.

Have you ever done anything to merit that level of arrogance? NOTE "Being a liberal" simply won't do.

Although I expect that's all you've got.

But you've made it abundantly clear your mind is closed. That's another trait of cultists.

Again you seem to look at your computer monitor and see yourself instead of what others are writing. I am open to the discussion of any and all positions and perspectives, but agreement with them requires compelling supportive evidences and a solidly reasoned position and that won't be accomplished with the ideological rants and rhetoric that seem the extent of consideration of any and all issues that I've seen so far.

 

[daveman]

Now Davey Boy, you are such a silly ass. Had you read the article, you might have noticed the time frame, and what the basis of the predictions are. Then again, were you capable of reading with understanding, you would not be posting such silly twaddle.

Uh oh. Roxy's pissed that I have him figured out.

 

[daveman]

Again you seem to look at your computer monitor and see yourself instead of what others are writing. I am open to the discussion of any and all positions and perspectives, but agreement with them requires compelling supportive evidences and a solidly reasoned position and that won't be accomplished with the ideological rants and rhetoric that seem the extent of consideration of any and all issues that I've seen so far.

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that the things you disagree with are all ideological rants and rhetoric.

Or maybe you can't deal with them, and are just knee-jerkingly dismissing them.

Yes, that seems far more likely.

 

[Trakar]

Again you seem to look at your computer monitor and see yourself instead of what others are writing. I am open to the discussion of any and all positions and perspectives, but agreement with them requires compelling supportive evidences and a solidly reasoned position and that won't be accomplished with the ideological rants and rhetoric that seem the extent of consideration of any and all issues that I've seen so far.

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that the things you disagree with are all ideological rants and rhetoric.

I don't know where you get that idea? there are a lot of things that I agree with that are basically ideological rants and rhetoric.

Whether or not something is a rant and rhetoric has more to do with the framing, qualification and support we use when making an argument than the position or perspective we adopt with regard to any given topic of discussion.

Rant - Speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way

Rhetoric - Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

[daveman]

Again you seem to look at your computer monitor and see yourself instead of what others are writing. I am open to the discussion of any and all positions and perspectives, but agreement with them requires compelling supportive evidences and a solidly reasoned position and that won't be accomplished with the ideological rants and rhetoric that seem the extent of consideration of any and all issues that I've seen so far.

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that the things you disagree with are all ideological rants and rhetoric.

I don't know where you get that idea? there are a lot of things that I agree with that are basically ideological rants and rhetoric.

Whether or not something is a rant and rhetoric has more to do with the framing, qualification and support we use when making an argument than the position or perspective we adopt with regard to any given topic of discussion.

Rant - Speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way

Rhetoric - Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Still pretending you have an open mind, I see. Do you think anyone's buying it?

 

[Noomi]

record summer rainfall

Its England. It would be a surprise if it wasn't raining.

 

[Politico]

No. They're clicking along just fine.

 

[Colin]

record summer rainfall

So what's new about rain in Britain? Have another drink!