Kansas Crimson

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:49 am

So?

This is horrendous, they should have just moved'em to higher ground. Poor things.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/clim ... 50yry.html

Someone needs to find a way to reduce the population of those New York city rats:

dolomite wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:49 am

So?

So, this is the picture of what a stupid person thinks a smart person looks like!

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:55 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:49 am

So?

So, this is the picture of what a stupid person thinks a smart person looks like!

100%

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:30 am

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:55 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 am

So?

So, this is the picture of what a stupid person thinks a smart person looks like!

100%

Really now, how come you tree huggers aren’t displeased with the extinction of the lil ole Australian brown rat? I thought at least Trad would chime in on that! LOL

What qualifies, in your eyes, a tree hugger?

dolomite wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:30 pm

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:30 am

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:55 pm

So, this is the picture of what a stupid person thinks a smart person looks like!

100%

Really now, how come you tree huggers aren’t displeased with the extinction of the lil ole Australian brown rat? I thought at least Trad would chime in on that! LOL

why would i?

so you can just respond with some ignorant, idiotic post?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:12 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:30 pm

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:30 am

100%

Really now, how come you tree huggers aren’t displeased with the extinction of the lil ole Australian brown rat? I thought at least Trad would chime in on that! LOL

why would i?

so you can just respond with some ignorant, idiotic post?

What a couldn't care less response regarding climate change extinctions! Pity.

From August 31, 2018: “Take That, Farmers’ Almanac “
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/take-that ... -1.4075532

Heh. “Senior Climatologist...”

kubandalum wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:53 pm From August 31, 2018: “Take That, Farmers’ Almanac “
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/take-that ... -1.4075532

Heh. “Senior Climatologist...”

good one?

except? he isn’t really a climatologist...his degree is in geography. he’s a writer.

plus, he was forecasting the WEATHER

i’ll just assume you don’t know the difference

you and dolo should look a little closer at your “zing” sources

or you could keep flailing

https://michaelsavage.com/global-warmin ... -60-years/

(not weather)

actually, it is

one absurdly cold february does not make a decades- or centuries-long trend

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... er-winter/

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:20 pm
except? he isn’t really a climatologist...his degree is in geography. he’s a writer.

Do you think he lied on his resume?

How about James Hanson, former NASA “climate scientist,” who got his degree in physics. Maybe he lied on his resume, because in 1988 he predicted that NYC’s West side Highway would be under water by 2008.
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

Also, in 2006 he said we only have a decade left to act.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/u ... -act-time/

In 2009 he said Obama has only 4 years to save the earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nsen-obama

Then there’s Dr. John Holdren, Obama’s senior science adviser. He studied aeronautics, astronautics, and plasma physics, but that didn’t stop him from prognosticating about climate. In 1986 he predicted that climate-induced famines would kill a billion people by 2020. He reiterated that in 2009.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas ... -solutions

kubandalum wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:39 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:20 pm
except? he isn’t really a climatologist...his degree is in geography. he’s a writer.

Do you think he lied on his resume?

yes, or at the very least exaggerated his education/qualifications

kubandalum wrote: How about James Hanson, former NASA “climate scientist,” who got his degree in physics. Maybe he lied on his resume, because in 1988 he predicted that NYC’s West side Highway would be under water by 2008.
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

hanson is a sensationalist, no doubt. the problem with him and anyone else (climate science aside) that attempts to put a point estimate on predictive forecasts, is that they either fail to pass along the important aspect of variance and confidence intervals (or the media fails to include those details in their stories). i don't know what led to hanson's 1988 prediction, but i can tell you that science in general has improved exponentially since 1988, and even since 2009. even in my own field (phylogenetics), we're able to do things that were thought impossible just a decade ago due to improved computational power.

undoubtedly, the models that are being used and developed today are far more complex and sophisticated than those used 10-20 years ago

kubandalum wrote: Also, in 2006 he said we only have a decade left to act.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/u ... -act-time/

In 2009 he said Obama has only 4 years to save the earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nsen-obama

Then there’s Dr. John Holdren, Obama’s senior science adviser. He studied aeronautics, astronautics, and plasma physics, but that didn’t stop him from prognosticating about climate. In 1986 he predicted that climate-induced famines would kill a billion people by 2020. He reiterated that in 2009.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas ... -solutions

none of those statements are wrong, necessarily. many in the scientific community agree that we've already crossed a threshold, and that we'll see 2 deg C warming regardless of what we do. the climate is undoubtedly changing, NOW. the world as we know it is already ending. sorry if it isn't as immediately catastrophic as you'd hoped.

something else to keep in mind - are you familiar with simple Mendelian inheritance? the theory posits a particular outcome (proportion of offspring) when a trait is controlled by a single gene. the prediction is almost NEVER correct on and individual basis, but rather converges on Mendel's prediction 25%:50%:25% as more and more data/trials/experiments are done. much of predictive science functions in this way...it is never perfect, but attempts to do the best it can (with the technology and empirical evidence available) to describe the pattern.

every year gives us more data, better algorithms, greater computational power, etc...

maybe you and dolo are right, and in fact i actually hope you are, and that the science is wrong. sadly, the trend isn't changing as time progresses, and we continue to see global temperature increases, shifts in pollinator/flowering timing, shifts in seasonal weather patterns, shifts in migration timing, glacial melt, etc.

when taking ALL of the data into account, the trend that is converged upon is in plain sight. you can keep trying to use anecdotes all day long as "proof" that the science is wrong, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation one bit

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:56 am

kubandalum wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:39 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:20 pm
except? he isn’t really a climatologist...his degree is in geography. he’s a writer.

Do you think he lied on his resume?

yes, or at the very least exaggerated his education/qualifications

kubandalum wrote: How about James Hanson, former NASA “climate scientist,” who got his degree in physics. Maybe he lied on his resume, because in 1988 he predicted that NYC’s West side Highway would be under water by 2008.
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

hanson is a sensationalist, no doubt. the problem with him and anyone else (climate science aside) that attempts to put a point estimate on predictive forecasts, is that they either fail to pass along the important aspect of variance and confidence intervals (or the media fails to include those details in their stories). i don't know what led to hanson's 1988 prediction, but i can tell you that science in general has improved exponentially since 1988, and even since 2009. even in my own field (phylogenetics), we're able to do things that were thought impossible just a decade ago due to improved computational power.

undoubtedly, the models that are being used and developed today are far more complex and sophisticated than those used 10-20 years ago

kubandalum wrote: Also, in 2006 he said we only have a decade left to act.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/u ... -act-time/

In 2009 he said Obama has only 4 years to save the earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nsen-obama

Then there’s Dr. John Holdren, Obama’s senior science adviser. He studied aeronautics, astronautics, and plasma physics, but that didn’t stop him from prognosticating about climate. In 1986 he predicted that climate-induced famines would kill a billion people by 2020. He reiterated that in 2009.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas ... -solutions

the world as we know it is already ending. sorry if it isn't as immediately catastrophic as you'd hoped.

Hey, Trump is working on it. Might take the full 8 years though.

The science has improved? Then why have we repeatedly been told that, “The science is settled”? AOC is now telling us that we have only 12 years to save the earth. What “climatologist” is she listening to?

Let me now when the science has improved enough that the models can take temperatures from before 2000 and predict temperatures from 2000 to the present.

you want science to predict the weather?

i don't think you understand how science works

and, you're [intentionally] listening to the wrong people if you take what AOC says to heart.

the science being settled is in reference to GLOBAL temperature increases...like i said, the trend hasn't changed. NOBODY can predict what the exact temperature is going to be at any one locality at any single point in time...there are too many factors, and they are too difficult to model.

like i said it isn't perfect, but it is the best that can be done with the information and technology we have (which will continue to improve through time).

whether or not you BELIEVE it, doesn't change the fact that it's happening