StabbinHobo posted:

its ok you're like guy number one million who's reaction to the info that they're the baddie is to go into a hyper defensive temper tantrum, its normal, the question is will you cry it out and then get to work?

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

What the gently caress is a "baddie"?

Thug Lessons posted:

You are never going to get people to voluntarily impoverish themselves to serve climate policy. End of story. Nor is it necessary to do so. Fossil power plants can be replaced with renewables and nuclear power, gasoline- and diesel- fueled vehicles can be replaced with EVs, beef can be replaced with imitation meat. That's how real-world decarbonization is going to proceed, whether you like it or not.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Having children is the most immoral act anyone could commit so I’m certainly with StabbinHobo on this one: if you have children, you are objectively and unequivocally evil. Like, Trump supporter level evil.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

When you commit a crime on accident, you’re still committing a crime.
But having children is a months long process anyway so accidentally having one is really hard and makes you stupid on top of evil.

Hello Sailor posted:

e: Incidentally, there's not a single "talking point" you've attempted to raise that isn't answered here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, so gently caress off and come back when you've got an issue you can't answer yourself with google.

quote:

Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.

quote:

We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero.

In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.

quote:

there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero.

quote:

Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 1-10% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.

OhYeah posted:

Oh boy. "97% of climate scientists" thing again..

So I took an argument at random and had a closer look.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-basic.htm

Okay, hurricanes it is.

Claim: There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

What does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say?

First of all, they have the Hurricane Research Division.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

Key points of interest:


That doesn't really look too promising.

But Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory has something to say as well.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/


TLDR: Took a claim at random skepticalscience.com, turned out to be a lie.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Okay I’m gonna quote the thing you quoted back at you because you’re being hella thick:


This quote does not say what you think it does. I bolded the important word for you, but do you need a link to Merriam-Webster?

Here are three paragraphs from the summary of the thing you quoted, which directly contradicts your point:

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Also lmao at your first link, which is over 10 years old. Don’t you have anything more recent? You're very bad at this.

Siljmonster posted:

Get a load of this stable brain genius

Ocean of Milk posted:

Just had a brain fart: Steering towards some reasonably efficient way to get the greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere is by far the most realistic and likely-to-succeed option, because that is a thing that doesn't really require challenging existing power or changing any institution's or individual's behavior, so to speak. You can just do it (if you have the resources to).

quote:

all reasonably big governments

OhYeah posted:

"will likely increase"
"will lead to"

Why are you trying to frame predictions for the future as evidence for processes that are supposedly already occurring?


It's still up on their website, which means the information is still valid and stands correct today. The information on the second link has been revised in 2018.


Do you anything to add to the actual discussion or are you just butthurt that your doomsday bubble has been burst?

Flowers For Algeria posted:

All of this is extremely weak and you know it. Come back when you’ve mastered elementary reading comprehension. This will require learning what "likely" means.

Ocean of Milk posted:

Just had a brain fart: Steering towards some reasonably efficient way to get the greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere is by far the most realistic and likely-to-succeed option, because that is a thing that doesn't really require challenging existing power or changing any institution's or individual's behavior, so to speak. You can just do it (if you have the resources to).
By contrast, if you want to reduce emissions to any acceptable level (as if there's such a thing), you have to fill all reasonably big governments with people willing to sacrifice prosperity for the environment (backed by actual popular support for that position), abolish capitalism, reform industry so the majority of production is emissions-free, forcefully take away most people's cars (even if you promise them a free EV in return, force will be needed in many cases) and regulate their behavior in a major manner. That's never gonna happen. Every single one of these tasks is impossible to achieve at a satisfactory scale (i.e. globally) even for governments, and would take decades.*
Developing some method to reduce atmospheric CO2 and fund its deployment massively seems relatively easy by comparison. The only thing required is some people with power who decide to do it. Some EU countries together with a handful of benevolent billionaires (lol) could do a decent contribution. Doesn't require transforming the USA, Russia or China into something else than neoliberal/proto-fascist capitalist hellholes. And I don't think that there would be major political opposition, i.e. the fossil-fuel oligarchs wouldn't care in the same manner they care about reducing emissions. They don't make their profits from there being CO2 in the atmosphere. They make them from burning oil (which, from their perspective, only incidentally emits CO2 in the atmosphere).

* And even if global carbon emissions were reduced to 0 tomorrow, we would still be stuck with the current CO2 concentration which is 45% higher than pre-industrial levels, which would take thousands of years to normalize with natural processes (ruining oceans in the process). At this point, we need mechanisms for getting GHG out of the atmosphere anyway. Reducing emissions, even to 0, is not enough. We need a negative number.

OhYeah posted:

OhYeah posted:

Do you anything to add to the actual discussion or are you just butthurt that your doomsday bubble has been burst?

DrHammond posted:

Loving this California fire season.

Really looking forward to the unending hellscape that California summers are looking likely to be from here on out. It's great at giving me an excuse to stay inside lurking doomsday threads as opposed to doing something I might actually enjoy, like biking, or hiking, or something.

Haha, I didn't like these lungs anyways.

Also OhYeah, watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out on the forums is only entertaining for so long. TIA for loving off.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

All of this is extremely weak and you know it. Come back when you’ve mastered elementary reading comprehension. This will require learning what "likely" means.

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Deniers tend to get their misinformation from a few sites that pretend like they've disproven (or have reason to doubt the intensity of) climate change, and then act like it's original research they did. This one's interesting to me because the attack on the hurricane aspect of climate change was done by Arkane several years ago, complete with the exact same kind of either lack of reading comprehension or deliberate misreading of things (though he was attacking the OP, rather than Skeptical Science).

Trabisnikof posted:

Also remember that US federal agencies have been ordered to wipe information related to climate change impacts from their websites and reports. So you can't trust that if NOAA says "this climate impact can't be determined" that NOAA scientists actually agree with the published conclusion.

OhYeah posted:

Yes, all these predictions are worded in a very cautious and vague way.

OhYeah posted:

This is literally what I did:

1) Think of an organization who have been studying hurricanes for a long time.
2) Go to their website and see if they have a FAQ section about the relationship between global warming and hurricanes.

I haven't seen a single rebuttal, all I've seen is a bunch of whining why I'm not worried about vague doomsday predictions for the future which may or may not come true.

OhYeah posted:

When somebody makes a joke about how climate warming cannot be true because we've had unusually cold winter with lots of snow you go into a frenzy and cry how you cannot get weather and climate mixed up. An unusually cold winter cannot be used as evidence for the lack of global warming trends. However, for some reason it is completely fine to use heatwaves and droughts as evidence for accelerating climate change. You can't have it both ways.

OhYeah posted:

"will likely increase"
"will lead to"

Why are you trying to frame predictions for the future as evidence for processes that are supposedly already occurring?


It's still up on their website, which means the information is still valid and stands correct today. The information on the second link has been revised in 2018.


Do you anything to add to the actual discussion or are you just butthurt that your doomsday bubble has been burst?

StabbinHobo posted:

fwiw OhYeah i'm not even reading past the first line or two of your posts. your entire tone and phrasing, let alone content is just super duper boring. you're like a lovely background character, the second-sidekick to the bad guy in a movie who's lines could be improv'd by a 9 year old. we've seen every dumb contrarian/skeptic blog post you can link to before. arkane and a half a dozen other idiots like you two already dragged us through all this for huuuuundreds of pages. its cool, I don't expect you to go back and read them or anything, its just you have to understand why we're all too bored by you to engage.

just like its not women's job to explain to men all the ways they're being sexist/patriarchal/rape-culture-y, its not actually our job to do you the favor of spending however many hours it would take to pierce your layers of mental illness and correct your awful opinions. you are very very very clearly not engaging in a serious grown up way, so of course we're not going to adopt you like a misbehaving teenager that just needs love.