nice. Bring on more change. 3-5 degrees warmer please.
+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
subroutine (Old Spike)
you are such a cute little holocaust denying conspiracy theorist :) . do humantiy a favor and dont reproduce.
+1
+4
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Wow. Unsubstantiated ad homenem attacks on the internet. Takes a brave man...
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pyranique (Short Spike)
Go get a room, you two! But like subroutine said....don't reproduce, you know... cause of the CO2
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
You don't get to fuck in the front hole... only nr2, can't risk more of you!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
LOL. At least there evidence that the holocaust happened.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
there's also a lot of evidence global warming is happening. thermometers aren't new or high-tech, neither are pictures showing massive glacier loss worldwide. the evidence that it is man-made is a little harder to measure, but still not difficult.
+1
+7
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Pray tell, exactly how much warming are we talking about? I know the number, I just want you to admit it openly.
+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pyranique (Short Spike)
There's lot of evidence of global warming AND that it is in part man made, indeed. The problem is.... what to do about it! Get rid of man? Convert to nuclear?
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
pimp635 (Member)
You are a moron if you think global warming is real
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh (Long Spike)
It's always imortant to take the opinions of top level scientists to at least form rational thought backed up by facts. Thanks for adding another studied opinion.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
This year pretty much average ice gains. Last year record high.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
subroutine (Old Spike)
Multi-year ice is more resiliant though, so the more coverage we have of just first or second year ice the more and more likely it is we see a completely ice free summer in the Arctic. That is more or less the main observation in this video...
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
They have been saying the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer for over a decade now. Well the ships are still waiting for their promised new routes to thaw over. Wouldn't hold my breath.
yes but so did multiple others showing that positive feedback had also been underestimated. we're currently years ahead of the worst-case warming from 10 years ago.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
come on at least don't pick up deliberate misinformation. "ice" isn't all the same. sea ice is very thin and doesn't matter much in the scale of climate change. old ice and glaciers are far more substantial because of their thickness.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Misinformation? That's from a reputable site and it shows the surface mass balance of the ice on Greenland.
Maybe for context look at the temperature on a longer scale. In the past 20 000 years, there's a rise of +9 degrees and were arguing about tenths of degrees.
Natural variability exists but somehow every change in the climate has to do with us. How do we differentiate between man-made and natural with such certainty when we are still trying to figure out the models?
I have no doubt humans have an effect, but to turn all the blame on us, I think is disingenuous.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Beseeched1 (Long Spike)
You fail at reading the graphs you posted. Give this a read - https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
subroutine (Old Spike)
now you are attesting me a bit much.
edit: well you edited all the sweet talk out of your comment - SAD. anyway ... it is: ad hominem.
... and i am sorry that i violated your internet safe space!
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh (Long Spike)
Like trying to argue with flat-earthers. Forget it. Go with "The climate change myth is being pushed by China to gain an economic advantage" then when it becomes obvious, just disappear.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask (Old Spike)
They often don't get the right results in their research because they don't completely understand how the climate works, yet. Take weather forecasts, it is a scientific approach and they still can't tell us the weather accurately longer than a week beforehand.
It's because it is a fluid dynamic system, which has an infinite amount of factors whose influences are nearly impossible to predict over longer periods of time using current state of the art technology. It is also an entire chaotic system that works beyond space and time across a giant spherical planet and we won't start predicting it better until we introduce more physicists or A.I to that problem.
Our best predictions are based on our planet's position relative to the position of the sun, thereby summer, autumn, winter, and spring. That remains a near constant as long as our planet stays on the same orbit, the same proximity from the sun, and is "tilted" the same way. If any of the other planets were to be knocked off their orbit, even slightly, it could bring dire consequences for our planet and you could forget about "seasons" as we know them.
But that also means watching solar flares, the ozone layer, changing atmospheric pressures and what leads to them.
If you do all your research working from the get go that only the human race's carbon emissions are responsible for any negative impact on the environment, of course your results will be off. You will have left out most of all contributing factors. Do we contribute to it? Surely! But will our limitation of carbon emissions actually lead to a stabilization of that system? We don't know. We don't even know if it will create the exact opposite effect and send the system out of control.
Our recorded history of climates is lacking and our few sources of climate changes predating it are melting away.
Which is why it is more important than ever to study other planets and their climates. There are planets out there which have storms larger than our planet, and aren't even going to stop within our lifetimes. Which is why we need NASA and other space agencies to monitor earth and other planets in the solar system indefinitely.
Watching a timelapsed video of a sudden recent change in Arctic Sea ice and using it as an argument for proving human carbon emissions did it all, will not lead to finding the cause nor will it lead to finding a solution.
It should be treated as another factoring piece of the giant chaotic puzzle our climate is, which does include us, which is what the people who recorded it(NASA) probably understands.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
We don't know how to model the clouds. But people pretend they can model the atmosphere. It doesn't add up.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
dude you've misrepresented accuracy. "not accurate" doesn't mean "wrong", it means "slightly off". the general trend is extremely accurate, and worryingly the trend has been worse than what was predicted 10 years ago.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Csmack (Short Spike)
Recent studies have actually indicated the opposite: worst case scenario projections will likely never happen.
Both news links should link to the original research content.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You have understood NOTHING (like fullauto) about climate change research and what information the models contain. Everything you say has been voiced by climate change "deniers", with no scientific credentials in the field (but compensating this with a right wing political agenda) and thereafter been debunked by the scientists carrying out the actual research. "You people" also like to grasp every red herring like weather forecasts and local weather phenomena that are presented to you without the blink of an eye because you don't understand the difference between "local" and "global", neither do you verify the evidence. "Crowder shouts it so it must be true." Whether this is out of laziness or lack of IQ or both I do not know.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask (Old Spike)
Naw. I'm not on either side. I'm saying nobody knows enough to conclude anything because it is a chaotic system. This is what the scientists are telling us. They defined it as a chaotic system. Not me. They have found that we contribute to that system, just like any other sources on planet Earth that releases carbon gasses, of which there are plenty.
As I said, many factors.
Yes, they mostly agree that humans contributed to the rising temperatures. I'm not denying that.
But if they had concluded it, the science would be final and it would be in our elementary school books being easily explained with pictures, graphs, and tasks that could let you fuck around with weather in one place and find the result in another. Just like today you find examples of the ecosystems and their cycles, what happens if a certain species die, or migrate. The system would be intelligently integrated several ways into society, just like Australian airports do about bringing live animals, bugs or plants to their dying continent.
What if they find that extreme hurricanes are positive for the planet, or help stabilize the temperatures?
We think of destruction that storms bring or rising water as a bad thing. Because we get hurt. But is it a bad thing for the planet? The atmosphere?
You don't know.
I don't know.
Nobody fucking knows.
If things are inevitably changing no matter what we do to stop it,(Which the climate scientists are telling us) why don't we adapt to those changes instead?
Which is why I suggested this being a problem which should be looked at by physicists.
And not money scheeming politicians looking for an indefinite source of taxes, from one of the consequences of our mere existence that cannot realistically be changed. That money isn't being used to improve the environment. They never made that promise. The budgets they have spent on environmental projects, that have failed, aren't even close to the taxes they are collecting, and are trying to collect more of.
The most impressive environmental projects have been started by private entities. But for some reason, everybody said "Yes, government! I trust you to do the right thing with my money.". And those weren't Republicans or Libertarians.
If the climate scientists knew everything they needed to know, the work on climate science slow down. But they aren't. Which is because the results change. Because the rules are not constant. Their are predictions are inaccurate.
I do know the difference between global and local. If it is global, as they are saying it is, it works across space time, which means we have to go all general relativity on this shit. Like Einstein, motherfucker. That's why your GPS is accurate. Physicists did that shit.
I used the example of local forecasts, because we assume they are easier to predict. But they're not seperate from the whole thing. We call things local, but it's never constant. Jungles turn into deserts. One place can be cold for decades, and warm the next. We have focused on local forecasts because WE tend to live there, and would like to know what weather they should prepare for by some days in advance.
A chaotic system means it is unpredictable by definition. Which means it has to be constantly updated and iterated over long periods of time in order to understand it, or even accurately predict changes in the climate.
Are we getting better at predicting it? YES.
Because of satellites, with higher resolutions, and higher framerates, and better thermal cameras that can record changes in temperature live, without resorting to humans walking around with thermometers, which was a painstaking activity that took years to organize and combine into something we could recognize patterns from.
Are we GOOD at it?
Fuck no.
I don't go to Crowder for my scientific facts.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You should have made that clear in your first comment.
Climate scientists are not politicians and do (should) not have a political agenda - which would be quickly rooted out via the scientific process.
The current climate models are way more accurate and reflecting reality way better than they used to 20 years ago, again, thanks to the scientific process and "political agendaless" research. The burning of fuel in a car's engine is also a chaotic process and the outcome (i.e. horsepower / torque) can be predicted fairly accurately, although the exact sequence of events happening in the compression chamber is not predictable at all. Climate science is more difficult but as stated above we are getting there.
I completely disagree with physicists taking over this research (are you Sheldon?), though, there are specific fields and for this we have specific scientists. Wherever things overlap more fields need covering.....
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Climate scientists are not politicians and do (should) not have a political agenda - which would be quickly rooted out via the scientific process."
In a perfect world, yes, but it's not always the case. Politics decides where the grant money flows and even in some cases encourages for specific results.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I don't know why this would be "benefitial" for climate change and politicians. Especially in the US the "deniers" are way more popular than the "believers". It is expensive and uncomfortable for everyone. If there would be a shred of evidence that the "global warming science" is substantially wrong EVERY politician (not just the deluded and completely agenda driven) would fucking jump on it and embrace it.
I don't know why you people think that this is some sort of propaganda for masochistic masturbation.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Carbon tax.
The emphasis is always on man made climate change. Natural variability is basically non exitent.
The real question is how do you reliably separate one from the other.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Natural variability is basically non exitent. "
Absolute and utter bullshit, which is religiously repeated by those that have not done any research on the matter or, as I know in your case, prefer to believe what they like to hear, regardless of the incredibility of the source.
Your post above on ice thickness just proves your complete ignorance on the subject.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So without humas influence what would be the current average temperature on earth?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
If you would have done some real research into the matter you could answer this question easily yourself (irrespective of whether or not you believe that the science behind the models is correct). Simply going to potholers channel and following the references to scientific papers and publications would lead you to the answer. Of course that would be a lot of reading of REAL, peer reviewed science not ridiculous statements of bloggers like crowder throwing red herrings at you and you willingly swallowing them, lol.
But to save you from this and keep you in your comfortable bubble of ignorance and unwillingness to look into peer reviewed science I can tell you that according to current models the estimate is a little under 1ºC.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
From NASA's site, the annual average is 0.9ºC. Maybe Potholers sources are out of date.
Lets put it another way. What % of the temperature increase is dues to human influence and how is it reliably measured. I'm sure you can pull the numbers from the top of your head since you have researched the shit out of this topic.
You know the models constantly miss the mark and I don't think Potholer is big on reporting on it, so you might miss a few interesting articles.
The models do not "constantly miss the mark" as you would like to have it, albeit they become more accurate as research goes on.
If you would have looked into the matter you would have spotted my (unfortunately not deliberate) mistake.
There are various temperature models we can look at, surface, ocean, combined. What I wanted to write is the DIFFERENCE between "only natural"* and "including human factors" would be just under 1ºC (data from around 2010, I don't like to waste much time on ignorants any more I'm only here because the weather is shit and I can't -or better don't want to- work outside).
May I quote from your link:
"The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us."
It is not negating or disproving anything. Including this in future models will increase accuracy of forecast, HOPEFULLY by decreasing the estimated temperature rise over time to give the whole thing a breather, it will be interesting to follow up on this development in the future.
Cherrypicking the "flaws" or inaccuracy of scientific development and using them as an indicator of the overall quality of the research, whilst not understanding and ignoring the remaining 99-ish% of it is not being skeptic but rather ignorant and usually agenda driven (including your constant refusal to actually LOOK AT the peer reviewed papers and publications - not the potholer videos, although that would be much less effort), it is in fact like the creationist constantly asking for the intermediate development in evolution and "the proof".
* Of course humans form part of nature so strictly speaking the "natural" change would include that human proportion of the industrial age, so it should be understood as natural = "without industialisation"
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"ROFL, your ignorance is remarkable!"
You know your beginning to sound a lot like berg. Add a few LOL's and your spot on. And I remember you complaining about the level of discussion on this site.
"The models do not "constantly miss the mark" as you would like to have it, albeit they become more accurate as research goes on."
The older the data the more "alarmist" the take on global warming. A decade ago top scientists from NASA would say Manhattan would be under water by now and green land would be ice free during the summer. I'd say thats a pretty massive failure in predicting climate. I don't know what the future holds but I can look at the rate at which predictions have come true. So far they have dialed down the predictions and with the latest correction even giving hope that it's totally possible that the level of warming stabilizes if the emissions are kept in check, whereas before they said it was almost impossible to undo the damage.
"There are various temperature models we can look at, surface, ocean, combined. What I wanted to write is the DIFFERENCE between "only natural"* and "including human factors" would be just under 1ºC (data from around 2010, I don't like to waste much time on ignorants any more I'm only here because the weather is shit and I can't -or better don't want to- work outside)."
Well, I certainly appreciate you taking the time in educating me oh great one. Instead of typing in numbers that I have to take on face value, maybe post a source.
I've repeated many times that I accept that the climate is changing and getting warmer. What I'm questioning is the severity of human influence.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Well, as I stated SO many times before You have to take NOTHING I WRITE OR LINK TO face value, NOT ONE THING as I always posted links to valid research or to blogs summarising valid research. You could (like the other deniers) research it yourself but it is not important or interesting enough or contradicts too much your own opinion. Me asking you whether you looked into it was replied to with a straight no.
I even read the link you sent and quoted directly from it but this just glides off your teflon opinion shell, doesn't it. Again no reply to this but just pathetic little complaints of me being condescending, which you actually deserve.
But then you happily posted shit you want others to take face value as there are no valid references just "dumb shit climate scientists said" and want "look what I found" credibility for that (to which I also replied months ago, debunking all the links that worked and of course nothing but silence from you). And then you wonder why I berg you. LOL You really do, don't you.
Your approach to the topic is, to put it mildly, sloppy. At school you would get an F for content and maybe a D- for effort.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So you can't provide sources? Ok.
"I even read the link you sent and quoted directly from it but this just glides off your teflon opinion shell, doesn't it. Again no reply to this but just pathetic little complaints of me being condescending, which you actually deserve."
You want a reply for that?
Ok. I don't know what to say because I guess you assume that I think this invalidates global warming or something??
No, it shows that the models can be off a good margin, which was my whole point.
Heres a quote from the same article with some actual numbers.
"Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said."
Since we're on the topic of not replying / ignoring, I'll quote myself:
"I've repeated many times that I accept that the climate is changing and getting warmer. What I'm questioning is the severity of human influence."
I hope you read it a couple times so maybe it will sink in. I know this might be hard to understand if you gotten used to the "you're either with us or your a denier" mentality.
"But then you happily posted shit you want others to take face value as there are no valid references just "dumb shit climate scientists said" and want "look what I found" credibility for that (to which I also replied months ago, debunking all the links that worked and of course nothing but silence from you). And then you wonder why I berg you. LOL You really do, don't you. "
Holy shit. You do have inflated ego or maybe just bad memory....maybe both. You debunked all those links? There must have been a hundred of them. Surely you saved the essay?
It might be a lot easier on you if you think of science as something that evolves over time and not being set in stone. That way it's just easier to admit if and when science gets something wrong without the emotional outbursts or "berging out".
Heres a nice summary of Nasa climate prophets track record.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/
Before you go all apeshit again, no Hansen isn't denying global warming, just revising his "alarmist" predictions i.e models didn't quite pan out.
So what's your opinion when the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer? The figures I've come across range from anywhere from 2000 to 2040. We can play with the numbers and graphs all we want, but there's no arguing if there's no ice. What are you betting on?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I posted links many times before, you denied watching the potholer videos or the peer reviewed papers he is referring to. Why do I like potholer?
By the looks of it he has no agenda and gives an in depth and unbiased view into the matter (i.e. he is not an environmentalist or alarmist), a depth that is required to understand what is going on if one does not want to read the peer reviewed papers and articles oneself. There are others but the information isn't as comprehensive or detailed.
Research has to start at the root and not from papers that point out inaccuracies or pure red herrings because one too easily follows the crowder route "all is flawed". In this it does not matter whether or not one believes it is not happening at all or that humans don't play a significant role.
If you want to stay uninformed, that's fine but don't complain when people ridicule your input.
If you want to have an informed discussion you will have to bite the bullet and either watch or read summaries of the research. If you wouldn't waste time arguing about things you understand nothing or very little about and searching for "holepoking studies" you could have read quite a few papers or watched quite a lot videos about it. But hey, suit yourself.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
As you again posted from "whatsupwiththat", a clearly unbiased independant site where submissions are fact checked and sources reliable, or is it?
Where you linked from the same site, all unverifiable sorces or distorted information ANYBODY could debunk within MINUTES with the help of a search engine on the interwebs, but that's too hard now, let's just believe it and have a joint.......
Scanning the article you referred to now and the links provided by the site it appears that Hansen hasn't dramatically changed his opinion at all. One may call him one of the alarmists (like fucking Gore, who spoilt a fucking lot for the science on it) who paints a more "flamboyant" picture of the issue, which is not my taste at all and I don't find very helpful but I see this as NOT on the same level BY FAR as a shapiro or crowder presenting their bias fuelled ingnorance on the matter.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Why do I like potholer?"
I've watched plenty of potholers videos and even chatted with him. I think I mentioned this before. I don't have anything against him. His videos are informative and he's well-versed in the climate science. The thing that irks me is that he is mainly a debunker. He goes after the most extreme loons and deniers. It's like preaching to the choir for the sake of entertainment.
When you watch his videos there's basically very little information where climate science got revised (and it's constantly being revised) since he is all about defending it. You wouldn't find him posting videos about the kind of articles I linked about the cloud cover, not unless there is a huge media frenzy around it and it's totally miss represented by the deniers. His motivation comes from debunking so his criticism is only directed to one side.
"If you wouldn't waste time arguing about things you understand nothing or very little about and searching for "holepoking studies" you could have read quite a few papers or watched quite a lot videos about it. But hey, suit yourself."
Hey, each to their own. Some people are actually interested if studies get things wrong. Weird huh?
"Here is the "conversation" I referred to earlier:
So this is the time you fact checked all those 107 links and they are all false. All of them?
I'm willing to accept that there's quite a few questionable examples there, but there are plenty of direct quotes from climate scientists that haven't come true. Is it really that hard to admit? Maybe it is if you make it an ideological crusade.
Are you willing to give that arctic melt date yet?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Again, an educated conversation with you on the topic is not possible. If you describe potholer as a "debunker" on the climate chenge issue clearly you haven't watched the climate change series.
"Some people are actually interested if studies get things wrong. Weird huh? "
Yes but it is weird if this is the ONLY information they rely on and then draw farfetched, or plain wrong conclusions.
"So this is the time you fact checked all those 107 links and they are all false. All of them?"
Now the ball is in my court? WHAT THE FUCK?
You are even too lazy to point out the valid (if any) points out of the 107? At least I looked at quite a few from starting at the TOP OF THE LIST down until I got bored, as I explained, NONE of those were! The whole process took me less than half an hour. Maybe you disagree but hey, of course no reply....
Are the valid ones hidden at the bottom?
I bet you haven't spent a minute researching, just read the title and said, "yes, that's it, I knew it". Your approach is less than pathetic.
Take your time to show us which of the 107 points you actually find "not being questionable" and agree with, if you are so sure something is actually in there. That would help a lot!
Again hell will freeze over despite all the global warming before we get an answer from you on that.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"If you describe potholer as a "debunker" on the climate chenge issue clearly you haven't watched the climate change series."
Looking at his 20 latest videos, practically all are debunking videos, so yes, I would call him a debunker.
"Yes but it is weird if this is the ONLY information they rely on and then draw farfetched, or plain wrong conclusions."
Who said that's what I only rely on. You like to put words in my mouth.
I'm skeptical of doomsday prophet alarmists so naturally, I tend to look if theres any basis for that.
Potholer isn't interested in that so neither are you.
"Now the ball is in my court? WHAT THE FUCK?"
You're the one that claiming there no truth to any of them.
You are incapable of admitting that the climate models (especially older ones) can get wrong the severity. You hold on to it like a religious person to the bible.
Yeah, I don't have the time to go through all of them but here's a few from Hansen.
Luckily predictions are easy to check if they have passed their due date.
Maybe all the reporters miss quoted Hansen or time traveling deniers changed them, who knows?
As I expected, headlines are good enough research for you:
"Yeah, I don't have the time to go through all of them..."
But you expect others to do it for you?
what kind of a lazy, ignorant cunt are you? I'll tell you: the fucking worst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Boy howdy Daft, this issue really got your dick hard didn't it. I know the feeling. I get the same way about the 2nd Amendment. Glad to see you're done sulking though.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
What gets me going is when "hedline worshipers" happily believe what some twat on the telly, in the paper or on a blog says without scrutiny when it fits their bias, regardless of how ridiculous the claim and incompetent the presenter but at the same time point out the ridiculousness of the same idiots of the opposition but are too lazy to inform themselves, see above.
BTW, off topic: As we live in the countryside now (not very remote but there have been reports of break ins) my wife an I decided to get a license and a short barrel, pistol grip pumpgun. The licensing and registration process here in spain may as well not exist (almost, at least there is registration):
You have to be "crime free"
Pass a health check, similar to that of driving or dangerous dog licenses
A hunting license is required (a matter of paying someone really)
Answer 50 multiple choice questions out of a catalogue of 250, most about technical issues like parts of the trigger mechanism, stuff that is really important when protecting your home
Load, fire two shots and make safe a gun of the type your license is for (which you will have to borrow from a friend who has a license)
Wait a few months for the license and you can get the gun your licensed for
Fucking ridiculous. There is NO gun range on the island where I can practise (all are max .22 because of the noise). So in theory the first time IN HER LIFE my (50kg/110lbs) wife could hold this type of gun in her hand would be firing these two shots above.
This would fucking go wrong big time!
Owning a gun is ALL ABOUT PRACTICE if you ask me.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As I thought. He must have been miss quoted since potholer said so.
Hansens would never say something like that :/
Heres the graph that Hansen used in his famous 1988 Congress presentation.
He used 3 scenarios A, B and C.
Scenario A is where we do not reduce CO2 emission and it keeps constantly growing by 1.5% a year.
Scenario B is stagnant
Scenario C is no increase after the year 2000.
GISTEMP (red and pink) are actual temperature readings.
Here below is the CO2 level increase from 1960 to present. As you can see it keeps steadily going up.
We are already above Hansens "A" scenario with about 2.5% per year.
Simply put they don't add up.
.
How about that arctic melt date now?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Just to get this into perspective: 1988 was the time I still was working on a computer featuring an 80286 processor, 80287 mathematical coprocessor, 640kB RAM and a 20MB Harddrive, typing commands into DOS 3.0 and staring at a VGA monitor that weighed an estimated ton and going deaf from the printer hacking away.
Well, in general if you look at predictions from 30 years ago they will of course be a bit off. Look at predictons from 20 years ago, they will be closer on the mark and from 10 years ago they will be even better. That does not make the science flawed, that is what we have peer review for.
Hansen used in his model a different climate sensitivity to that later used by the IPCC, which is way more on the mark, here is a more detailed analysis.
Funnily enough all this did not stir up shit in the scientific world, only the agenda driven and conspiracy theorists (those that don't actually care about the research but love to produce headlines) made a big deal out of it (and apparently still do) and the headline worshipers of course swallow the bait without scrutiny.
And lastly:
This is really the best you can do? Out of ALL the 107 things climate science got wrong you chose 30 year old information, that has been corrected and thus been irrelevant for at least a decade?
A single word to describe your efforts comes to mind: pathetic.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I don't care if he used stick and stones to model it. He came in front of the Congress to pass this as legit. Now, I don't think he tried to fool anyone intentionally, he just used faulty data in the models.
I don't even know if this was on the list. I haven't read it through foaming at the mouth as you might believe.
I just know there are predictions that got it wrong and that's been my point the whole time. Pretty sure potholer never covered this so hope you learned something new.
Yes and I don't have the time to fact check the list. Some people have jobs and families to take care of.
You, on the other hand, seem to have all the time in the world, complaining about the shitty weather and being bored.
Most of the list is comprised of climate scientists quotes from interviews so none of them would be deemed worthy by you anyways, because potholer said so. Sure, "climate denial sensationalism" does exist, but fucking hell if you take me as an imbecile that reads tabloid headlines as fact.
Boy seems like this really got under your skin, huh? Now your posting new videos directed at me. I hope the weather gets better down in Spain and you'll get some fresh air.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Well suit yourself. but stop discussing this shit if you don't have time to inform yourself or are not interested enough to even fact check the gobshite you post or refer to.
In the last case it literally took minutes and as I said the time before not even half an hour until I got bored of the brainfarts.
Funnily enough The last reply did not even have a reference to potholer, did it.
If you keep on "simply believing" that they got so many things wrong that all or a big proportion is flawed you are like a creationist or a headline hugger.
My interest in this has nothing to do with wanting to win or fear of the armageddon, I don't have kids or grandchildren to worry about the future, I have no reason to believe I will live forever or be reborn. I simply became interested in the science so I did some research on the matter and then I found it fun to ridicule the deniers and headline huggers pathetic gullability.
So it's simple really, if you don't want to be ridiculed or spoken to in a condescending manner: read up or shut up.
I won't have much mre time for this anyway. I just hope you DO encourage your children to be skeptical in a "do as I say, don't do as I do" fashion.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Well suit yourself. but stop discussing this shit if you don't have time to inform yourself or are not interested enough to even fact check the gobshite you post or refer to."
Didn't I just educate about shit you never knew about?
Now you have some insight on the history of climate science. I think a "thank you" is in order.
So hows about giving that date for the Arctic melt? I think this the fifth time I've asked for it. I have suspicion on why you don't want to give a date and it is very central to this discussion.
I'd look it up but I'd just get caught up in all them headlines, so maybe let a professional do it and tell me.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
This maybe would be topic in a discussion with someone educated on the topic, with you it would merely be a waste of time for me digging out the shit you try to poke holes into because "you don't have the time to look into it yourself". No, thank you.
I had a similar issue with the biastoid on dog training/education. He wouldn't even agree on the simplest scientific definitions of psychology of learning (I guess because -like you?- he was afraid of "being wrong", something so irrational I can't understand because effectively I am on his side on this topic) so I declined discussing things further with him. I found this especially rich from someone flooding the site with Jordan Peterson (a psychologist). But I guess even in psychology some only agree on the parts they have a bias on.
This is the problem with people like him and you, I guess. Afraid of being wrong rather than accepting it as an opportunity to learn something new.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"his maybe would be topic in a discussion with someone educated on the topic, with you it would merely be a waste of time for me digging out the shit you try to poke holes into because "you don't have the time to look into it yourself". No, thank you."
It's a date I'm asking, nothing more. Even an idiot like me can tell the difference if there's ice or not.
Yeah the point I'm driving again here is the uncertainty of the models is so high that you can't put your money where your mouth is. Maybe you are afraid of being wrong?
"This is the problem with people like him and you, I guess. Afraid of being wrong rather than accepting it as an opportunity to learn something new."
Well, thats rich coming from someone who basically said their motivation on researching this topic is to ridicule people that show even the slightest criticism towards the science. Come to think it of it, you've not posted any actual information on climate science on this threat and when asked to do so you decline.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
How old are you? 10? No climate scientist will be able to predict an exact date for what you ask. Asking the question shows you deserved the video I posted for you. I don't thinkl you're dumb but you are clearly one that easily falls for conspiracy theories, LOL. *Insert your favourite berg insult here*
The information you are looking for is readily available to anyone willing to spend time on it, you don't have to watch potholer videos for that. Literally thousands of peer reviewed stydies are available on-line. headline huggers like you don't care, fair enough, but you could at least give someone you are conversing with the courtesy of trying to understand what they are saying. But hey, living in the bubble of the own bold lettered "information" is so much more comfortable.
This is my last input on the topic.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"No climate scientist will be able to predict an exact date for what you ask.
The information you are looking for is readily available to anyone willing to spend time on it"
Which one is it? I'm not expecting an exact date, but just something that doesn't span over a decade. You know even potholer gives information in the attempt to educate fools but all I get from you is ad hominems.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh (Long Spike)
Clear. Succinct. Informative. Educational. Good comment.
I've had to travel and work among both sides of the issue. One thing is for sure, whether it's the people who accept science or the people who accept nothing, they don't change their minds. Ever. A human trait, especially among those who are "Grassy knoll" people, is to not accept truth seemingly ESPECIALLY when scientific or basic cognizance proves it beyond rational thinking.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pantysoaker (Long Spike)
I like how they had to relabel global warming to climate change because literally nothing was happening. Its like when they renamed ex "moly"
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
I don't think anyone has denied that the climate changes. Of course it changes. The question is, are those claiming a global Apocalypse is around the corner if half us don't commit suicide while the other half all become fucking vegans and join a one world communist government to be taken seriously?
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
no-one is suggesing any of those things. all anyone is saying is there's proof the world is getting warmer which is having multiple negative effects. the gas composition of the atmosphere has changed, and evidence shows the largest cumulative effect has been adding more carbon dioxide. nobody is saying an apocalypse is around the corner, what it means is that the negative effects will get worse and worse over time, and in the near future we'll start to experience effects bad enough to cause crop failures, which will be tolerable at first, but will get worse and worse until it's a massive disaster and we can't grow enough food. not being able to grow wheat in more than 80% of the wheat belt, for example.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
You yourself, FullAutoGal, have denied that climate change even happens, but that was a few years ago...probably around 2015 or so on a now-deleted video on the earlier version of SpikedNation.com. I know this for certain because my brain vividly remembers it, so when you respond to this with a vehement denial please know that you won't be changing *MY* mind, you'll only be putting on a theatrical show for everyone else.
Your talking points change at the same pace as the deniers. Back in the 1990's and the 2000's it was in vogue to simply deny climate change outright, stating that it was a cycle that takes tens of thousands of years. Then near the end of the aughts, the new climate change denier stance was to state that climate change does happen and obviously is happening, but humans have no effect...which is where I'm assuming your mindset is right now.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Slow down Grothesk. Yes. I did post a video that contained information contrary to your beliefs. I'm sorry if that offended you (not really). Just because I submit a video doens't mean, unlike you, that I beleive every single word or idea contained therein. Sometimes I submit videos because I want to discuss the matter.
I find it halarious that you response has the intonations of accusing me of a crime. "YOU DENIED THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS!!" Well holy shit, I guess it's time to erect the gibbits and get the fucking noose ready because what a horrible crime that is.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
You literally wrote out the following sentence: "I don't think anyone has denied that the climate changes. Of course it changes."
I know for a fact that you denied that climate change even occurs or has occurred within the past 500 years because you legit stated it in a *comment*, not via submitting a video. You then foolishly mocked the people who offered you scientific data showing you otherwise.
The reason that you don't have a defense against this is because you and I both know it happened and it follows with your lockstep, right winger persona. Don't get pissed at me; instead, choose not to be a blind idealogue.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Cool story bro. Nobody is pissed at you. And the blind idealogue is sitting there behind your keyboard.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen (Long Spike)
There's places in Greenland that are measuring + centrigrades currently. At a time of the year when their mercury should be around -20 to -30 C. Something about the polar vortex responsible being reversed which has never happened before or somesuch.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Sigh people don't even argue about this subject in a constructive way, but yeah here's that polar vortex thing:
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen (Long Spike)
Eh. Trying to have a constructive discussion on the webs is like trying to fill a well by bucket. The job might get done some day but...
Neat video of the vortex thingie. I wonder what made it change direction and then apparently disperse into three vortices?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Suspicious Observers believes Solar energy events have a significant role to play in influencing climate change and other events. They have an earthquake forecasting model that is slaved entirely to Solar activity and have had some success at predicting Earthquakes with it. However like the "climate science" of the past four decades it is a work-in-progress.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
SirDraq (Member)
I still have my University library for a couple months before I graduate, so if anyone would like me to post the thousands of peer edited scientific journals proving the existence of global warming and the next to none opposed please let me know
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The forte of the deniers is not "reading actual research", if it would be we would not have s many dumb comments on the topic.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
SirDraq (Member)
Tell me about it. This winter in Ottawa while taking a CPR course, the fire fighter teaching said out loud "How do you explain the reality of global warming when it is -35 out?".
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The problem is that most people are small minded and need to rely on their own observation to believe stuff (and there are the conspiracy nuts: "the government wants you to believe..."). They superficially inform themselves and then only look at the few news articles that apparently poke holes in the theory (none of them actually do, not serious ones anyway) which are mostly published by right wing papers and blogs (misrepresenting and distorting the content on the way) whilst ignoring the publication supporting current theories as they do not make the headlines.
I don't know whether the reason is ego feeding or laziness or fear to have to change their opinion.
Just look at the "discussion" I had with backdraft above (I will check if I find the earlier conversation on here but I have a suspicion it is on the old spiked) He is notorious for only looking in the "hole poking" and not having the background to have an educated conversation on the topic.
Comments
(Old Spike)
nice. Bring on more change. 3-5 degrees warmer please.
(Old Spike)
you are such a cute little holocaust denying conspiracy theorist :) . do humantiy a favor and dont reproduce.
(Old Spike)
Wow. Unsubstantiated ad homenem attacks on the internet. Takes a brave man...
(Short Spike)
Go get a room, you two! But like subroutine said....don't reproduce, you know... cause of the CO2
(Old Spike)
You don't get to fuck in the front hole... only nr2, can't risk more of you!
(Old Spike)
LOL. At least there evidence that the holocaust happened.
(Old Spike)
there's also a lot of evidence global warming is happening. thermometers aren't new or high-tech, neither are pictures showing massive glacier loss worldwide. the evidence that it is man-made is a little harder to measure, but still not difficult.
(Old Spike)
Pray tell, exactly how much warming are we talking about? I know the number, I just want you to admit it openly.
(Short Spike)
There's lot of evidence of global warming AND that it is in part man made, indeed. The problem is.... what to do about it! Get rid of man? Convert to nuclear?
(Member)
You are a moron if you think global warming is real
(Long Spike)
It's always imortant to take the opinions of top level scientists to at least form rational thought backed up by facts. Thanks for adding another studied opinion.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
This year pretty much average ice gains. Last year record high.
(Old Spike)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
They have been saying the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer for over a decade now. Well the ships are still waiting for their promised new routes to thaw over. Wouldn't hold my breath.
Just recently a new study came out where climate models had quite significantly underestimated the effect of cloud cover. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle
(Old Spike)
yes but so did multiple others showing that positive feedback had also been underestimated. we're currently years ahead of the worst-case warming from 10 years ago.
(Old Spike)
come on at least don't pick up deliberate misinformation. "ice" isn't all the same. sea ice is very thin and doesn't matter much in the scale of climate change. old ice and glaciers are far more substantial because of their thickness.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Misinformation? That's from a reputable site and it shows the surface mass balance of the ice on Greenland.
Maybe for context look at the temperature on a longer scale. In the past 20 000 years, there's a rise of +9 degrees and were arguing about tenths of degrees.
Natural variability exists but somehow every change in the climate has to do with us. How do we differentiate between man-made and natural with such certainty when we are still trying to figure out the models?
I have no doubt humans have an effect, but to turn all the blame on us, I think is disingenuous.
(Long Spike)
You fail at reading the graphs you posted. Give this a read - https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
(Old Spike)
now you are attesting me a bit much.
edit: well you edited all the sweet talk out of your comment - SAD. anyway ... it is: ad hominem.
... and i am sorry that i violated your internet safe space!
(Long Spike)
Like trying to argue with flat-earthers. Forget it. Go with "The climate change myth is being pushed by China to gain an economic advantage" then when it becomes obvious, just disappear.
(Old Spike)
They often don't get the right results in their research because they don't completely understand how the climate works, yet. Take weather forecasts, it is a scientific approach and they still can't tell us the weather accurately longer than a week beforehand.
It's because it is a fluid dynamic system, which has an infinite amount of factors whose influences are nearly impossible to predict over longer periods of time using current state of the art technology. It is also an entire chaotic system that works beyond space and time across a giant spherical planet and we won't start predicting it better until we introduce more physicists or A.I to that problem.
Our best predictions are based on our planet's position relative to the position of the sun, thereby summer, autumn, winter, and spring. That remains a near constant as long as our planet stays on the same orbit, the same proximity from the sun, and is "tilted" the same way. If any of the other planets were to be knocked off their orbit, even slightly, it could bring dire consequences for our planet and you could forget about "seasons" as we know them.
But that also means watching solar flares, the ozone layer, changing atmospheric pressures and what leads to them.
If you do all your research working from the get go that only the human race's carbon emissions are responsible for any negative impact on the environment, of course your results will be off. You will have left out most of all contributing factors. Do we contribute to it? Surely! But will our limitation of carbon emissions actually lead to a stabilization of that system? We don't know. We don't even know if it will create the exact opposite effect and send the system out of control.
Our recorded history of climates is lacking and our few sources of climate changes predating it are melting away.
Which is why it is more important than ever to study other planets and their climates. There are planets out there which have storms larger than our planet, and aren't even going to stop within our lifetimes. Which is why we need NASA and other space agencies to monitor earth and other planets in the solar system indefinitely.
Watching a timelapsed video of a sudden recent change in Arctic Sea ice and using it as an argument for proving human carbon emissions did it all, will not lead to finding the cause nor will it lead to finding a solution.
It should be treated as another factoring piece of the giant chaotic puzzle our climate is, which does include us, which is what the people who recorded it(NASA) probably understands.
(Old Spike)
We don't know how to model the clouds. But people pretend they can model the atmosphere. It doesn't add up.
(Old Spike)
dude you've misrepresented accuracy. "not accurate" doesn't mean "wrong", it means "slightly off". the general trend is extremely accurate, and worryingly the trend has been worse than what was predicted 10 years ago.
(Short Spike)
Recent studies have actually indicated the opposite: worst case scenario projections will likely never happen.
- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-09/climate-change-just-got-a-little-less-terrible
Both news links should link to the original research content.
(Old Spike)
You have understood NOTHING (like fullauto) about climate change research and what information the models contain. Everything you say has been voiced by climate change "deniers", with no scientific credentials in the field (but compensating this with a right wing political agenda) and thereafter been debunked by the scientists carrying out the actual research. "You people" also like to grasp every red herring like weather forecasts and local weather phenomena that are presented to you without the blink of an eye because you don't understand the difference between "local" and "global", neither do you verify the evidence. "Crowder shouts it so it must be true." Whether this is out of laziness or lack of IQ or both I do not know.
(Old Spike)
Naw. I'm not on either side. I'm saying nobody knows enough to conclude anything because it is a chaotic system. This is what the scientists are telling us. They defined it as a chaotic system. Not me. They have found that we contribute to that system, just like any other sources on planet Earth that releases carbon gasses, of which there are plenty.
As I said, many factors.
Yes, they mostly agree that humans contributed to the rising temperatures. I'm not denying that.
But if they had concluded it, the science would be final and it would be in our elementary school books being easily explained with pictures, graphs, and tasks that could let you fuck around with weather in one place and find the result in another. Just like today you find examples of the ecosystems and their cycles, what happens if a certain species die, or migrate. The system would be intelligently integrated several ways into society, just like Australian airports do about bringing live animals, bugs or plants to their dying continent.
What if they find that extreme hurricanes are positive for the planet, or help stabilize the temperatures?
We think of destruction that storms bring or rising water as a bad thing. Because we get hurt. But is it a bad thing for the planet? The atmosphere?
You don't know.
I don't know.
Nobody fucking knows.
If things are inevitably changing no matter what we do to stop it,(Which the climate scientists are telling us) why don't we adapt to those changes instead?
Which is why I suggested this being a problem which should be looked at by physicists.
And not money scheeming politicians looking for an indefinite source of taxes, from one of the consequences of our mere existence that cannot realistically be changed. That money isn't being used to improve the environment. They never made that promise. The budgets they have spent on environmental projects, that have failed, aren't even close to the taxes they are collecting, and are trying to collect more of.
The most impressive environmental projects have been started by private entities. But for some reason, everybody said "Yes, government! I trust you to do the right thing with my money.". And those weren't Republicans or Libertarians.
If the climate scientists knew everything they needed to know, the work on climate science slow down. But they aren't. Which is because the results change. Because the rules are not constant. Their are predictions are inaccurate.
I do know the difference between global and local. If it is global, as they are saying it is, it works across space time, which means we have to go all general relativity on this shit. Like Einstein, motherfucker. That's why your GPS is accurate. Physicists did that shit.
I used the example of local forecasts, because we assume they are easier to predict. But they're not seperate from the whole thing. We call things local, but it's never constant. Jungles turn into deserts. One place can be cold for decades, and warm the next. We have focused on local forecasts because WE tend to live there, and would like to know what weather they should prepare for by some days in advance.
A chaotic system means it is unpredictable by definition. Which means it has to be constantly updated and iterated over long periods of time in order to understand it, or even accurately predict changes in the climate.
Are we getting better at predicting it? YES.
Because of satellites, with higher resolutions, and higher framerates, and better thermal cameras that can record changes in temperature live, without resorting to humans walking around with thermometers, which was a painstaking activity that took years to organize and combine into something we could recognize patterns from.
Are we GOOD at it?
Fuck no.
I don't go to Crowder for my scientific facts.
(Old Spike)
You should have made that clear in your first comment.
Climate scientists are not politicians and do (should) not have a political agenda - which would be quickly rooted out via the scientific process.
The current climate models are way more accurate and reflecting reality way better than they used to 20 years ago, again, thanks to the scientific process and "political agendaless" research. The burning of fuel in a car's engine is also a chaotic process and the outcome (i.e. horsepower / torque) can be predicted fairly accurately, although the exact sequence of events happening in the compression chamber is not predictable at all. Climate science is more difficult but as stated above we are getting there.
I completely disagree with physicists taking over this research (are you Sheldon?), though, there are specific fields and for this we have specific scientists. Wherever things overlap more fields need covering.....
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Climate scientists are not politicians and do (should) not have a political agenda - which would be quickly rooted out via the scientific process."
In a perfect world, yes, but it's not always the case. Politics decides where the grant money flows and even in some cases encourages for specific results.
(Old Spike)
I don't know why this would be "benefitial" for climate change and politicians. Especially in the US the "deniers" are way more popular than the "believers". It is expensive and uncomfortable for everyone. If there would be a shred of evidence that the "global warming science" is substantially wrong EVERY politician (not just the deluded and completely agenda driven) would fucking jump on it and embrace it.
I don't know why you people think that this is some sort of propaganda for masochistic masturbation.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Carbon tax.
The emphasis is always on man made climate change. Natural variability is basically non exitent.
The real question is how do you reliably separate one from the other.
(Old Spike)
"Natural variability is basically non exitent. "
Absolute and utter bullshit, which is religiously repeated by those that have not done any research on the matter or, as I know in your case, prefer to believe what they like to hear, regardless of the incredibility of the source.
Your post above on ice thickness just proves your complete ignorance on the subject.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So without humas influence what would be the current average temperature on earth?
(Old Spike)
If you would have done some real research into the matter you could answer this question easily yourself (irrespective of whether or not you believe that the science behind the models is correct). Simply going to potholers channel and following the references to scientific papers and publications would lead you to the answer. Of course that would be a lot of reading of REAL, peer reviewed science not ridiculous statements of bloggers like crowder throwing red herrings at you and you willingly swallowing them, lol.
But to save you from this and keep you in your comfortable bubble of ignorance and unwillingness to look into peer reviewed science I can tell you that according to current models the estimate is a little under 1ºC.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
From NASA's site, the annual average is 0.9ºC. Maybe Potholers sources are out of date.
Lets put it another way. What % of the temperature increase is dues to human influence and how is it reliably measured. I'm sure you can pull the numbers from the top of your head since you have researched the shit out of this topic.
You know the models constantly miss the mark and I don't think Potholer is big on reporting on it, so you might miss a few interesting articles.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle
(Old Spike)
ROFL, your ignorance is remarkable!
The models do not "constantly miss the mark" as you would like to have it, albeit they become more accurate as research goes on.
If you would have looked into the matter you would have spotted my (unfortunately not deliberate) mistake.
There are various temperature models we can look at, surface, ocean, combined. What I wanted to write is the DIFFERENCE between "only natural"* and "including human factors" would be just under 1ºC (data from around 2010, I don't like to waste much time on ignorants any more I'm only here because the weather is shit and I can't -or better don't want to- work outside).
May I quote from your link:
"The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us."
It is not negating or disproving anything. Including this in future models will increase accuracy of forecast, HOPEFULLY by decreasing the estimated temperature rise over time to give the whole thing a breather, it will be interesting to follow up on this development in the future.
Cherrypicking the "flaws" or inaccuracy of scientific development and using them as an indicator of the overall quality of the research, whilst not understanding and ignoring the remaining 99-ish% of it is not being skeptic but rather ignorant and usually agenda driven (including your constant refusal to actually LOOK AT the peer reviewed papers and publications - not the potholer videos, although that would be much less effort), it is in fact like the creationist constantly asking for the intermediate development in evolution and "the proof".
* Of course humans form part of nature so strictly speaking the "natural" change would include that human proportion of the industrial age, so it should be understood as natural = "without industialisation"
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"ROFL, your ignorance is remarkable!"
You know your beginning to sound a lot like berg. Add a few LOL's and your spot on. And I remember you complaining about the level of discussion on this site.
"The models do not "constantly miss the mark" as you would like to have it, albeit they become more accurate as research goes on."
The older the data the more "alarmist" the take on global warming. A decade ago top scientists from NASA would say Manhattan would be under water by now and green land would be ice free during the summer. I'd say thats a pretty massive failure in predicting climate. I don't know what the future holds but I can look at the rate at which predictions have come true. So far they have dialed down the predictions and with the latest correction even giving hope that it's totally possible that the level of warming stabilizes if the emissions are kept in check, whereas before they said it was almost impossible to undo the damage.
"There are various temperature models we can look at, surface, ocean, combined. What I wanted to write is the DIFFERENCE between "only natural"* and "including human factors" would be just under 1ºC (data from around 2010, I don't like to waste much time on ignorants any more I'm only here because the weather is shit and I can't -or better don't want to- work outside)."
Well, I certainly appreciate you taking the time in educating me oh great one. Instead of typing in numbers that I have to take on face value, maybe post a source.
I've repeated many times that I accept that the climate is changing and getting warmer. What I'm questioning is the severity of human influence.
(Old Spike)
Well, as I stated SO many times before You have to take NOTHING I WRITE OR LINK TO face value, NOT ONE THING as I always posted links to valid research or to blogs summarising valid research. You could (like the other deniers) research it yourself but it is not important or interesting enough or contradicts too much your own opinion. Me asking you whether you looked into it was replied to with a straight no.
I even read the link you sent and quoted directly from it but this just glides off your teflon opinion shell, doesn't it. Again no reply to this but just pathetic little complaints of me being condescending, which you actually deserve.
But then you happily posted shit you want others to take face value as there are no valid references just "dumb shit climate scientists said" and want "look what I found" credibility for that (to which I also replied months ago, debunking all the links that worked and of course nothing but silence from you). And then you wonder why I berg you. LOL You really do, don't you.
Your approach to the topic is, to put it mildly, sloppy. At school you would get an F for content and maybe a D- for effort.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So you can't provide sources? Ok.
"I even read the link you sent and quoted directly from it but this just glides off your teflon opinion shell, doesn't it. Again no reply to this but just pathetic little complaints of me being condescending, which you actually deserve."
You want a reply for that?
Ok. I don't know what to say because I guess you assume that I think this invalidates global warming or something??
No, it shows that the models can be off a good margin, which was my whole point.
Heres a quote from the same article with some actual numbers.
"Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said."
Since we're on the topic of not replying / ignoring, I'll quote myself:
"I've repeated many times that I accept that the climate is changing and getting warmer. What I'm questioning is the severity of human influence."
I hope you read it a couple times so maybe it will sink in. I know this might be hard to understand if you gotten used to the "you're either with us or your a denier" mentality.
"But then you happily posted shit you want others to take face value as there are no valid references just "dumb shit climate scientists said" and want "look what I found" credibility for that (to which I also replied months ago, debunking all the links that worked and of course nothing but silence from you). And then you wonder why I berg you. LOL You really do, don't you. "
Holy shit. You do have inflated ego or maybe just bad memory....maybe both. You debunked all those links? There must have been a hundred of them. Surely you saved the essay?
It might be a lot easier on you if you think of science as something that evolves over time and not being set in stone. That way it's just easier to admit if and when science gets something wrong without the emotional outbursts or "berging out".
Heres a nice summary of Nasa climate prophets track record.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/
Before you go all apeshit again, no Hansen isn't denying global warming, just revising his "alarmist" predictions i.e models didn't quite pan out.
So what's your opinion when the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer? The figures I've come across range from anywhere from 2000 to 2040. We can play with the numbers and graphs all we want, but there's no arguing if there's no ice. What are you betting on?
(Old Spike)
I posted links many times before, you denied watching the potholer videos or the peer reviewed papers he is referring to. Why do I like potholer?
By the looks of it he has no agenda and gives an in depth and unbiased view into the matter (i.e. he is not an environmentalist or alarmist), a depth that is required to understand what is going on if one does not want to read the peer reviewed papers and articles oneself. There are others but the information isn't as comprehensive or detailed.
Research has to start at the root and not from papers that point out inaccuracies or pure red herrings because one too easily follows the crowder route "all is flawed". In this it does not matter whether or not one believes it is not happening at all or that humans don't play a significant role.
If you want to stay uninformed, that's fine but don't complain when people ridicule your input.
If you want to have an informed discussion you will have to bite the bullet and either watch or read summaries of the research. If you wouldn't waste time arguing about things you understand nothing or very little about and searching for "holepoking studies" you could have read quite a few papers or watched quite a lot videos about it. But hey, suit yourself.
(Old Spike)
As you again posted from "whatsupwiththat", a clearly unbiased independant site where submissions are fact checked and sources reliable, or is it?
Here is the "conversation" I referred to earlier:
https://www.spikednation.com/videos/global-warming-all-wrong#comment-5848
Where you linked from the same site, all unverifiable sorces or distorted information ANYBODY could debunk within MINUTES with the help of a search engine on the interwebs, but that's too hard now, let's just believe it and have a joint.......
Scanning the article you referred to now and the links provided by the site it appears that Hansen hasn't dramatically changed his opinion at all. One may call him one of the alarmists (like fucking Gore, who spoilt a fucking lot for the science on it) who paints a more "flamboyant" picture of the issue, which is not my taste at all and I don't find very helpful but I see this as NOT on the same level BY FAR as a shapiro or crowder presenting their bias fuelled ingnorance on the matter.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Why do I like potholer?"
I've watched plenty of potholers videos and even chatted with him. I think I mentioned this before. I don't have anything against him. His videos are informative and he's well-versed in the climate science. The thing that irks me is that he is mainly a debunker. He goes after the most extreme loons and deniers. It's like preaching to the choir for the sake of entertainment.
When you watch his videos there's basically very little information where climate science got revised (and it's constantly being revised) since he is all about defending it. You wouldn't find him posting videos about the kind of articles I linked about the cloud cover, not unless there is a huge media frenzy around it and it's totally miss represented by the deniers. His motivation comes from debunking so his criticism is only directed to one side.
"If you wouldn't waste time arguing about things you understand nothing or very little about and searching for "holepoking studies" you could have read quite a few papers or watched quite a lot videos about it. But hey, suit yourself."
Hey, each to their own. Some people are actually interested if studies get things wrong. Weird huh?
"Here is the "conversation" I referred to earlier:
https://www.spikednation.com/videos/global-warming-all-wrong#comment-5848"
So this is the time you fact checked all those 107 links and they are all false. All of them?
I'm willing to accept that there's quite a few questionable examples there, but there are plenty of direct quotes from climate scientists that haven't come true. Is it really that hard to admit? Maybe it is if you make it an ideological crusade.
Are you willing to give that arctic melt date yet?
(Old Spike)
Again, an educated conversation with you on the topic is not possible. If you describe potholer as a "debunker" on the climate chenge issue clearly you haven't watched the climate change series.
"Some people are actually interested if studies get things wrong. Weird huh? "
Yes but it is weird if this is the ONLY information they rely on and then draw farfetched, or plain wrong conclusions.
"So this is the time you fact checked all those 107 links and they are all false. All of them?"
Now the ball is in my court? WHAT THE FUCK?
You are even too lazy to point out the valid (if any) points out of the 107? At least I looked at quite a few from starting at the TOP OF THE LIST down until I got bored, as I explained, NONE of those were! The whole process took me less than half an hour. Maybe you disagree but hey, of course no reply....
Are the valid ones hidden at the bottom?
I bet you haven't spent a minute researching, just read the title and said, "yes, that's it, I knew it". Your approach is less than pathetic.
Take your time to show us which of the 107 points you actually find "not being questionable" and agree with, if you are so sure something is actually in there. That would help a lot!
Again hell will freeze over despite all the global warming before we get an answer from you on that.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"If you describe potholer as a "debunker" on the climate chenge issue clearly you haven't watched the climate change series."
Looking at his 20 latest videos, practically all are debunking videos, so yes, I would call him a debunker.
"Yes but it is weird if this is the ONLY information they rely on and then draw farfetched, or plain wrong conclusions."
Who said that's what I only rely on. You like to put words in my mouth.
I'm skeptical of doomsday prophet alarmists so naturally, I tend to look if theres any basis for that.
Potholer isn't interested in that so neither are you.
"Now the ball is in my court? WHAT THE FUCK?"
You're the one that claiming there no truth to any of them.
You are incapable of admitting that the climate models (especially older ones) can get wrong the severity. You hold on to it like a religious person to the bible.
Yeah, I don't have the time to go through all of them but here's a few from Hansen.
Luckily predictions are easy to check if they have passed their due date.
Maybe all the reporters miss quoted Hansen or time traveling deniers changed them, who knows?
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490
12 Jun 1986, Page 12 – The Evening Times at Newspapers.com
Still no arctic meltdown prediction?
(Old Spike)
As I expected, headlines are good enough research for you:
"Yeah, I don't have the time to go through all of them..."
But you expect others to do it for you?
what kind of a lazy, ignorant cunt are you? I'll tell you: the fucking worst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ
(Old Spike)
Boy howdy Daft, this issue really got your dick hard didn't it. I know the feeling. I get the same way about the 2nd Amendment. Glad to see you're done sulking though.
(Old Spike)
What gets me going is when "hedline worshipers" happily believe what some twat on the telly, in the paper or on a blog says without scrutiny when it fits their bias, regardless of how ridiculous the claim and incompetent the presenter but at the same time point out the ridiculousness of the same idiots of the opposition but are too lazy to inform themselves, see above.
BTW, off topic: As we live in the countryside now (not very remote but there have been reports of break ins) my wife an I decided to get a license and a short barrel, pistol grip pumpgun. The licensing and registration process here in spain may as well not exist (almost, at least there is registration):
Fucking ridiculous. There is NO gun range on the island where I can practise (all are max .22 because of the noise). So in theory the first time IN HER LIFE my (50kg/110lbs) wife could hold this type of gun in her hand would be firing these two shots above.
This would fucking go wrong big time!
Owning a gun is ALL ABOUT PRACTICE if you ask me.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As I thought. He must have been miss quoted since potholer said so.
Hansens would never say something like that :/
Heres the graph that Hansen used in his famous 1988 Congress presentation.
He used 3 scenarios A, B and C.
Scenario A is where we do not reduce CO2 emission and it keeps constantly growing by 1.5% a year.
Scenario B is stagnant
Scenario C is no increase after the year 2000.
GISTEMP (red and pink) are actual temperature readings.
Here below is the CO2 level increase from 1960 to present. As you can see it keeps steadily going up.
We are already above Hansens "A" scenario with about 2.5% per year.
Simply put they don't add up.
How about that arctic melt date now?
(Old Spike)
Just to get this into perspective: 1988 was the time I still was working on a computer featuring an 80286 processor, 80287 mathematical coprocessor, 640kB RAM and a 20MB Harddrive, typing commands into DOS 3.0 and staring at a VGA monitor that weighed an estimated ton and going deaf from the printer hacking away.
Well, in general if you look at predictions from 30 years ago they will of course be a bit off. Look at predictons from 20 years ago, they will be closer on the mark and from 10 years ago they will be even better. That does not make the science flawed, that is what we have peer review for.
The reason for the difference was explained quite unspectacularily some 8 years ago by John Christy:
Hansen used in his model a different climate sensitivity to that later used by the IPCC, which is way more on the mark, here is a more detailed analysis.
Funnily enough all this did not stir up shit in the scientific world, only the agenda driven and conspiracy theorists (those that don't actually care about the research but love to produce headlines) made a big deal out of it (and apparently still do) and the headline worshipers of course swallow the bait without scrutiny.
And lastly:
This is really the best you can do? Out of ALL the 107 things climate science got wrong you chose 30 year old information, that has been corrected and thus been irrelevant for at least a decade?
A single word to describe your efforts comes to mind: pathetic.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I don't care if he used stick and stones to model it. He came in front of the Congress to pass this as legit. Now, I don't think he tried to fool anyone intentionally, he just used faulty data in the models.
I don't even know if this was on the list. I haven't read it through foaming at the mouth as you might believe.
I just know there are predictions that got it wrong and that's been my point the whole time. Pretty sure potholer never covered this so hope you learned something new.
Yes and I don't have the time to fact check the list. Some people have jobs and families to take care of.
You, on the other hand, seem to have all the time in the world, complaining about the shitty weather and being bored.
Most of the list is comprised of climate scientists quotes from interviews so none of them would be deemed worthy by you anyways, because potholer said so. Sure, "climate denial sensationalism" does exist, but fucking hell if you take me as an imbecile that reads tabloid headlines as fact.
Boy seems like this really got under your skin, huh? Now your posting new videos directed at me. I hope the weather gets better down in Spain and you'll get some fresh air.
(Old Spike)
Well suit yourself. but stop discussing this shit if you don't have time to inform yourself or are not interested enough to even fact check the gobshite you post or refer to.
In the last case it literally took minutes and as I said the time before not even half an hour until I got bored of the brainfarts.
Funnily enough The last reply did not even have a reference to potholer, did it.
If you keep on "simply believing" that they got so many things wrong that all or a big proportion is flawed you are like a creationist or a headline hugger.
My interest in this has nothing to do with wanting to win or fear of the armageddon, I don't have kids or grandchildren to worry about the future, I have no reason to believe I will live forever or be reborn. I simply became interested in the science so I did some research on the matter and then I found it fun to ridicule the deniers and headline huggers pathetic gullability.
So it's simple really, if you don't want to be ridiculed or spoken to in a condescending manner: read up or shut up.
I won't have much mre time for this anyway. I just hope you DO encourage your children to be skeptical in a "do as I say, don't do as I do" fashion.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Well suit yourself. but stop discussing this shit if you don't have time to inform yourself or are not interested enough to even fact check the gobshite you post or refer to."
Didn't I just educate about shit you never knew about?
Now you have some insight on the history of climate science. I think a "thank you" is in order.
So hows about giving that date for the Arctic melt? I think this the fifth time I've asked for it. I have suspicion on why you don't want to give a date and it is very central to this discussion.
I'd look it up but I'd just get caught up in all them headlines, so maybe let a professional do it and tell me.
(Old Spike)
This maybe would be topic in a discussion with someone educated on the topic, with you it would merely be a waste of time for me digging out the shit you try to poke holes into because "you don't have the time to look into it yourself". No, thank you.
I had a similar issue with the biastoid on dog training/education. He wouldn't even agree on the simplest scientific definitions of psychology of learning (I guess because -like you?- he was afraid of "being wrong", something so irrational I can't understand because effectively I am on his side on this topic) so I declined discussing things further with him. I found this especially rich from someone flooding the site with Jordan Peterson (a psychologist). But I guess even in psychology some only agree on the parts they have a bias on.
This is the problem with people like him and you, I guess. Afraid of being wrong rather than accepting it as an opportunity to learn something new.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"his maybe would be topic in a discussion with someone educated on the topic, with you it would merely be a waste of time for me digging out the shit you try to poke holes into because "you don't have the time to look into it yourself". No, thank you."
It's a date I'm asking, nothing more. Even an idiot like me can tell the difference if there's ice or not.
Yeah the point I'm driving again here is the uncertainty of the models is so high that you can't put your money where your mouth is. Maybe you are afraid of being wrong?
"This is the problem with people like him and you, I guess. Afraid of being wrong rather than accepting it as an opportunity to learn something new."
Well, thats rich coming from someone who basically said their motivation on researching this topic is to ridicule people that show even the slightest criticism towards the science. Come to think it of it, you've not posted any actual information on climate science on this threat and when asked to do so you decline.
(Old Spike)
How old are you? 10? No climate scientist will be able to predict an exact date for what you ask. Asking the question shows you deserved the video I posted for you. I don't thinkl you're dumb but you are clearly one that easily falls for conspiracy theories, LOL. *Insert your favourite berg insult here*
The information you are looking for is readily available to anyone willing to spend time on it, you don't have to watch potholer videos for that. Literally thousands of peer reviewed stydies are available on-line. headline huggers like you don't care, fair enough, but you could at least give someone you are conversing with the courtesy of trying to understand what they are saying. But hey, living in the bubble of the own bold lettered "information" is so much more comfortable.
This is my last input on the topic.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"No climate scientist will be able to predict an exact date for what you ask.
The information you are looking for is readily available to anyone willing to spend time on it"
Which one is it? I'm not expecting an exact date, but just something that doesn't span over a decade. You know even potholer gives information in the attempt to educate fools but all I get from you is ad hominems.
(Long Spike)
Clear. Succinct. Informative. Educational. Good comment.
I've had to travel and work among both sides of the issue. One thing is for sure, whether it's the people who accept science or the people who accept nothing, they don't change their minds. Ever. A human trait, especially among those who are "Grassy knoll" people, is to not accept truth seemingly ESPECIALLY when scientific or basic cognizance proves it beyond rational thinking.
(Long Spike)
I like how they had to relabel global warming to climate change because literally nothing was happening. Its like when they renamed ex "moly"
(Old Spike)
I don't think anyone has denied that the climate changes. Of course it changes. The question is, are those claiming a global Apocalypse is around the corner if half us don't commit suicide while the other half all become fucking vegans and join a one world communist government to be taken seriously?
(Old Spike)
no-one is suggesing any of those things. all anyone is saying is there's proof the world is getting warmer which is having multiple negative effects. the gas composition of the atmosphere has changed, and evidence shows the largest cumulative effect has been adding more carbon dioxide. nobody is saying an apocalypse is around the corner, what it means is that the negative effects will get worse and worse over time, and in the near future we'll start to experience effects bad enough to cause crop failures, which will be tolerable at first, but will get worse and worse until it's a massive disaster and we can't grow enough food. not being able to grow wheat in more than 80% of the wheat belt, for example.
(Long Spike)
You yourself, FullAutoGal, have denied that climate change even happens, but that was a few years ago...probably around 2015 or so on a now-deleted video on the earlier version of SpikedNation.com. I know this for certain because my brain vividly remembers it, so when you respond to this with a vehement denial please know that you won't be changing *MY* mind, you'll only be putting on a theatrical show for everyone else.
Your talking points change at the same pace as the deniers. Back in the 1990's and the 2000's it was in vogue to simply deny climate change outright, stating that it was a cycle that takes tens of thousands of years. Then near the end of the aughts, the new climate change denier stance was to state that climate change does happen and obviously is happening, but humans have no effect...which is where I'm assuming your mindset is right now.
(Old Spike)
Slow down Grothesk. Yes. I did post a video that contained information contrary to your beliefs. I'm sorry if that offended you (not really). Just because I submit a video doens't mean, unlike you, that I beleive every single word or idea contained therein. Sometimes I submit videos because I want to discuss the matter.
I find it halarious that you response has the intonations of accusing me of a crime. "YOU DENIED THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS!!" Well holy shit, I guess it's time to erect the gibbits and get the fucking noose ready because what a horrible crime that is.
(Long Spike)
You literally wrote out the following sentence: "I don't think anyone has denied that the climate changes. Of course it changes."
I know for a fact that you denied that climate change even occurs or has occurred within the past 500 years because you legit stated it in a *comment*, not via submitting a video. You then foolishly mocked the people who offered you scientific data showing you otherwise.
The reason that you don't have a defense against this is because you and I both know it happened and it follows with your lockstep, right winger persona. Don't get pissed at me; instead, choose not to be a blind idealogue.
(Old Spike)
Cool story bro. Nobody is pissed at you. And the blind idealogue is sitting there behind your keyboard.
(Long Spike)
There's places in Greenland that are measuring + centrigrades currently. At a time of the year when their mercury should be around -20 to -30 C. Something about the polar vortex responsible being reversed which has never happened before or somesuch.
(Old Spike)
Sigh people don't even argue about this subject in a constructive way, but yeah here's that polar vortex thing:
(Long Spike)
Eh. Trying to have a constructive discussion on the webs is like trying to fill a well by bucket. The job might get done some day but...
Neat video of the vortex thingie. I wonder what made it change direction and then apparently disperse into three vortices?
(Old Spike)
Suspicious Observers believes Solar energy events have a significant role to play in influencing climate change and other events. They have an earthquake forecasting model that is slaved entirely to Solar activity and have had some success at predicting Earthquakes with it. However like the "climate science" of the past four decades it is a work-in-progress.
(Member)
I still have my University library for a couple months before I graduate, so if anyone would like me to post the thousands of peer edited scientific journals proving the existence of global warming and the next to none opposed please let me know
(Old Spike)
The forte of the deniers is not "reading actual research", if it would be we would not have s many dumb comments on the topic.
(Member)
Tell me about it. This winter in Ottawa while taking a CPR course, the fire fighter teaching said out loud "How do you explain the reality of global warming when it is -35 out?".
(Old Spike)
The problem is that most people are small minded and need to rely on their own observation to believe stuff (and there are the conspiracy nuts: "the government wants you to believe..."). They superficially inform themselves and then only look at the few news articles that apparently poke holes in the theory (none of them actually do, not serious ones anyway) which are mostly published by right wing papers and blogs (misrepresenting and distorting the content on the way) whilst ignoring the publication supporting current theories as they do not make the headlines.
I don't know whether the reason is ego feeding or laziness or fear to have to change their opinion.
Just look at the "discussion" I had with backdraft above (I will check if I find the earlier conversation on here but I have a suspicion it is on the old spiked) He is notorious for only looking in the "hole poking" and not having the background to have an educated conversation on the topic.
(Long Spike)
Sure, sure. You know you are a flat-earther.