Will Greta Thunberg go the way of so many other child stars?

[ding]

I don't recall you asking me diddly squat, but this is not a topic to which I pay much mind (nor you). There are plenty of scientists who believe we have passed the critical point; that there is no longer any chance that we will be able to stave off catastrophic warming - particularly since we're still not doing as much as scientists told us we needed to do decades ago. We're fucked and she is right and you are wrong. That about sums it up I think.

There is zero chance that any of their predictions of catastrophic warming will come true. We're in an interglacial period. Much of the past 10,000 years was warmer. The previous interglacial periods were warmer. Everything is perfectly normal for a planet that is still 2C below its normal interglacial peak temperature. A warmer planet means a wetter planet. Nothing catastrophic about that.

 

[psikeyhackr]

There is zero chance that any of their predictions of catastrophic warming will come true. We're in an interglacial period. Much of the past 10,000 years was warmer. The previous interglacial periods were warmer. Everything is perfectly normal for a planet that is still 2C below its normal interglacial peak temperature. A warmer planet means a wetter planet. Nothing catastrophic about that.

And the highest peak for CO2 in all previous cycles was 300 ppm.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Anyway. While I'm reminded of it, I idled my V8 today for about an hour. Sounded great, too. love that bluh, bluh, bluh, bluh, bluh, bluh, bluh sound. I did so because (1) I felt like it and (2) because I wanted to bring it up to temp and get rid of any condensation since it's been parked ever since salt went down on the roads.

LoL!

The first time I took my son to a poker room, I got so caught up with expmaining poker etiquite that I forgot to turn off my Dodge Charger when we went in. I was horrified when I came out but it was fine.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ask Greta, I don't care about her. I read the book "The Discovery of Global Warming" and couple by Michael Mann. I don't care where Greta got her information there are lots of books. Which ones have you read?

This thread is about Greta.

You read books? Name some other titles and I'll find one and read it. Pinkie swear I'll read until I get to the first false fact, emotional appeal, or unsupported conclusion. Shouldnt take long.

Computing any "swings" by hand is really difficult to believe considering that supercomputers can run for days. So specify who did these calculations for one of your 50 preposterous claims. The first computer example I found was ENIAC in the late 1940s that ran for 24 hours.

You'd want to ask the people making those dire and preposterous predictions.

I went back and inserted your quote in case you didn't notice.

So you knew that I had not said "computer model."

 

[Seymour Flops]

You read books? Name some other titles and I'll find one and read it. Pinkie swear I'll read until I get to the first false fact, emotional appeal, invalid analogy, or unsupported conclusion. Shouldnt take long.

Well, that sure didn't take long, psikeyhackr. First emotional appeal was in the first paragraph:

"-felled by global warming."

Alarmists are nothing if not drama queens. Frustrated wannabe playwrights and actors.

At least he uses the right word in that second paragraph. But he should have put the word "science" in quotes. Being paid by government to desperately search for evidence of a theory that government can use to gain power and wealth, while limiting our freedom isn't science.

It goes on:

These guys are certainly the heroes in their own story.

Come on, man! Is this a satire?

Nor anyone's apparently. Alarmists are long on fear-mongoring, but short on solutions. When they actually do propose solutions, they erily match the goals that anti-capitalist America haters have long pushed.

Yes! It's epic! Icy wastes or the high seas! Sometimes both. Remember the global warming research ship that got stuck in the antarctic ice during its mission to prove that said ice was disappearing rapidly? Good times . . .

That paragraph goes on like that for a while. Then:

The first invalid analogy! The one about the termite inspector report. Can you tell us why it is invalid?

To be fair, I stopped readng the preface, since they are often such claptrap and rarely read.

I read the first chapter, at least as much as was available for preview. It was as advertised, I'll give it that. It was a history of global warming as a field of study, not an attempt to present evidence for global warming.

What are some other books that maybe have models, or better yet, some kind of evidence that shows cause and effect?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I am sure Henry Ford did not "imagine" the Model T before he tried to build it.

Whether Greta Thunberg becomes anything like defunct child actors will depend on how the climate changes over the next 20 years. Actually think coming up with the comparison was idiotic.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am sure Henry Ford did not "imagine" the Model T before he tried to build it.

Yes, he imagined the model T, but he did not try to sell it before he actually made a prototype and then manufactured it. He did not try to convince people it was real, by having a child yell at them, and calling people who didn't buy it right away names.

Whether Greta Thunberg becomes anything like defunct child actors will depend on how the climate changes over the next 20 years. Actually think coming up with the comparison was idiotic.

Assuming that the climate cycles continue much as they have for millions of years, best guess is that she disappears from public view (unless she writes the tell-all book I mentioned), to be replaced by another anti-global warming spokesperson. Likely a transgender pre-teen this time.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, he imagined the model T, but he did not try to sell it before he actually made a prototype and then manufactured it. He did not try to convince people it was real, by having a child yell at them, and calling people who didn't buy it right away names.

You tried to ridicule something on the basis of the word "imagine". I was merely pointing out your absurdity. The climate is not something that can be sold. Just because climate physics is beyond your understanding, of which you are not aware, and you presume that you can "convince" people with your vast intellect that there is no possible climate problem, that is no excuse to misuse the word "imagine" from which all progress is ultimately derived.

 

[Crick]

And the highest peak for CO2 in all previous cycles was 300 ppm.
View attachment 744094

You failed to tell us what vertical scaling you were going to use to make the CO2 rise less than a millimeter. CO2 has risen over 50% since the Industrial Revolution and most of that has been in the last 50 years. Scaling it to look insignificant is a good deal less than honest.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You failed to tell us what vertical scaling you were going to use to make the CO2 rise less than a millimeter. CO2 has risen over 50% since the Industrial Revolution and most of that has been in the last 50 years. Scaling it to look insignificant is a good deal less than honest.

I don't understand your complaint. The vertical range is only about 150 to 420. The Keeling Curve was started in 1958 so it is only 64 years over which most of the rise has occurred but ice cores have provided 800,000 years of data. The problem is fitting that on a page. I just added a little imagination explaining what it would take to put it on a page. The vertical scale requires no change. The Keeling data would fit into 2/3rds of a millimeter compared to 26 meters for all of the Ice core information.

 

[Crick]

I don't understand your complaint. The vertical range is only about 150 to 420. The Keeling Curve was started in 1958 so it is only 64 years over which most of the rise has occurred but ice cores have provided 800,000 years of data. The problem is fitting that on a page. I just added a little imagination explaining what it would take to put it on a page. The vertical scale requires no change. The Keeling data would fit into 2/3rds of a millimeter compared to 26 meters for all of the Ice core information.

Ah... do you realize you would be committing the same sin that all the deniers have been criticizing Mann and Shakun and Marcott for doing: tacking instrument data on the tail end of proxy data.

In your initial post I assumed that you meant that had you plotted the time out on a 26 meter scale that the ice core's range of CO2 data would then fit into 2/3rds of a millimeter. That didn't make any sense to me. So I guess we're sort of even.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You tried to ridicule something on the basis of the word "imagine". I was merely pointing out your absurdity. The climate is not something that can be sold. Just because climate physics is beyond your understanding, of which you are not aware, and you presume that you can "convince" people with your vast intellect that there is no possible climate problem, that is no excuse to misuse the word "imagine" from which all progress is ultimately derived.

There is no "climate problem" that human activity causes or can prevent. Democrats who live in smoggy blue cities may be forgiven for thinking that humans are destroying the Earth. Europeans who live on that cesspool of a peninsula, also. As treatment for Climate Derangement Syndrome, from which Greta clearly suffers, I recommend that you drive down to I-10 and take it across the country. Not only will you learn a lot about the real America, but your imagined concerns about running out of trees will be assuaged by the end of the first day.

 

[Crick]

There is no "climate problem" that human activity causes or can prevent.

Global warming from GHG emissions

Democrats who live in smoggy blue cities may be forgiven for thinking that humans are destroying the Earth.

That's not it. It's the science. Thousands and thousands of pages of it.

Europeans who live on that cesspool of a peninsula, also.

You've got your enemies list all down pat, haven't you.

As treatment for Climate Derangement Syndrome, from which Greta clearly suffers, I recommend that you drive down to I-10 and take it across the country. Not only will you learn a lot about the real America, but your imagined concerns about running out of trees will be assuaged by the end of the first day.

As treatment for your ignorance, I suggest you learn some basic science and then start reading studies on this topic in refereed science journals.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Global warming from GHG emissions

That's not it. It's the science. Thousands and thousands of pages of it.

You've got your enemies list all down pat, haven't you.

As treatment for your ignorance, I suggest you learn some basic science and then start reading studies on this topic in refereed science journals.

First thing I want to read is your answer to this:

If we are no longer able to stave off catastrophic warming - particularly since we show no sign of doing any more than we are doing to "prevent climate change," what's the point of her warnings? If nothing we will realistically do can change it, why not just accept our fate, drill for as much oil as we can as fast as we can to get the economy back on track and party until the end?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah... do you realize you would be committing the same sin that all the deniers have been criticizing Mann and Shakun and Marcott for doing: tacking instrument data on the tail end of proxy data.

You can regard that as a sin all you want but all instrument data started some time in the last 300 years, but the planet is older than that. The 800,000 year core was drilled in 2004 so ther was more than 30 years of overlap with the Keeling Curve.

Matching satellite with ground based data is more of a problem.

 

[Crick]

You can regard that as a sin all you want but all instrument data started some time in the last 300 years, but the planet is older than that. The 800,000 year core was drilled in 2004 so ther was more than 30 years of overlap with the Keeling Curve.

Matching satellite with ground based data is more of a problem.

I don't regard it as a sin but it has been very popular with AGW deniers to criticize scientists who tack instrument data on the end of proxy data. That all started with stolen emails between Keith Briffa, a dendrochronologist, and Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) discussing how to smoothly merge tree ring data with instrument data in the face of an idiopathic change in temperature/ring thickness ratios over the last century. So now, anyone putting the two together is accused of trying to "hide the decline".

 

[Crick]

First thing I want to read is your answer to this:

If we are no longer able to stave off catastrophic warming - particularly since we show no sign of doing any more than we are doing to "prevent climate change," what's the point of her warnings? If nothing we will realistically do can change it, why not just accept our fate, drill for as much oil as we can as fast as we can to get the economy back on track and party until the end?

There is an enormous difference between acting too late to stave off all consequences and never acting at all. Imagine an imminent car collision. If drivers step on the brakes soon enough, no collision will occur. If they step on them a little later, the collision will still take place but at reduced velocity and thus with reduced damage. If they never step on the brakes, the collision will take place at maximum velocity with maximum damage. Get it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is an enormous difference between acting too late to stave off all consequences and never acting at all. Imagine an imminent car collision. If drivers step on the brakes soon enough, no collision will occur. If they step on them a little later, the collision will still take place but at reduced velocity and thus with reduced damage. If they never step on the brakes, the collision will take place at maximum velocity with maximum damage. Get it?

Worst analogy ever. Or best.

Best for proving my point, worst for proving yours. Remember that your statement was this:

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have passed the critical point; that there is no longer any chance that we will be able to stave off catastrophic warming - particularly since we're still not doing as much as scientists told us we needed to do decades ago. We're fucked and she is right and you are wrong. That about sums it up I think.

Exactly. If we are past the point of stepping on the brake so that no collision will occur, be it the reduced velocity or max velocity, in the words of My Cousin Vinny, You're gettin' fucked one way or the other. You are worried about how fiery of a crash you will die in, or how many flips your Prius will do before landing on the other side of the ditch. You won't give a shit either way, I assure you.

Just as you said - If the scientists are right, we're fucked and Greta Thunberg and her followers (like you) are right I am wrong. So we might as well drill for as much oil as we can, produce enough to last us as long as we can, and party hard until the end.

Or . . . we could realize that Greta is a child with a behavior disorder who has been turned into an obnoxious little twit by stage parents who likely also have behavior disorders. We could not follow the policy lead of such a child.

We could further realize that no science predicts any disaster in the foreseeable future, only child and child-like activists make those predictions, by their amateur interpretations of the actual science. On the shaky assumption that carbon is gradually warming up the Earth, then we are going to have a gradually warming Earth and we need to deal with that.

We cannot stop it by the outlandish proposals of climate activists, because they would never be implimented and even if they were, they would never work. So deal with it is the only opion.

What are your ideas to deal with it?

 

[ding]

Global warming from GHG emissions

That's not it. It's the science. Thousands and thousands of pages of it.

You've got your enemies list all down pat, haven't you.

As treatment for your ignorance, I suggest you learn some basic science and then start reading studies on this topic in refereed science journals.

Computer models are not science.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Computer models are not science.

Yeah, computer simulations are so unscientific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/supercomputers-offer-tools-for-nuclear-testing--and-solving-nuclear-mysteries/2011/10/03/gIQAjnngdM_story.html

Supercomputer Models Explosives Critical for Nuclear Weapons

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is one of the laboratories that operates under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the United States’ stockpile of nuclear weapons. Amid major efforts to modernize that stockpile, LLNL has announced that...

www.hpcwire.com

HPE, AMD win deal for U.S. supercomputer to model nuclear weapons

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co and Advanced Micro Devices Inc on Wednesday said they had won a $600 million deal to deliver a supercomputer that will be used by the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear security arm to support the nation's nuclear arsenal.

www.reuters.com

Nuclear physics is Not Science!