Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[rederob]

Making people fear that the end of the world is near is an old way of making it possible to radicalise people. If they think the world is going to end, they're much easier to induce to take extreme actions they otherwise wouldn't be willing to do.

Except that you are presenting a completely false narrative.
There is absolutely no truth to saying the world will end.
The only people that go about saying this are the very ill informed.
And those who are so stupid as to think we cannot see that there are many who are happy to promote misinformation and lies because they simply refuse to accept what science is showing to be occurring.

 

[Sdajii]

LOL rederob

So decreasing ice = climate
Increasing ice = weather

Careful rederob, your bias is showing.

By the way. Re-read my comment. I said it is NOT relevant that 2019 had a 5 year maximum ice extent. NOT relevant. Yet you are reacting as if I was saying it countered the trend.

Rederob and kahuna are a little off the rails, dogmatic, and use their imagination at least as much as their eyes when reading other peoples' posts.

The arctic ice is clearly on a downwards trend over the last few decades. That's fine, we should all be able to agree with that. But what people like them will do is imply or work on the assumption that since we only have a few decades of data it was virtually constant for the previous few centuries, maybe thousands or millions of years.

They exaggerate the data. There's no need to, the data does show a legitimate trend in the measured range, but they'll use outliers on the sides they're pushing as legitimate and dismiss any data on the other. Then if anyone points out their inconsistencies they'll descend into ad hominem attacks, bizarre rants such as the gravity one we've just seen, accuse people of saying things they didn't, generally be over the top emotional etc.

I don't think there are many people at all denying that the climate does indeed change and the overall global direction at the moment is warmer. But these people get riled right up, find an example of evidence that something is getting warmer, and use that undeniable fact to show something else, and if anyone questions that to any extent, the ad hominem attacks and strawmen come out. For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims, the fact that arctic ice diminishing is not in itself evidence of humans causing it. People like this, though, will throw an irrational tantrum exaggerating something like the legitimate arctic ice data, act like anyone saying anything less than dogmatic unconditional belief in the extreme version of the narrative is unable to see that the sea ice is diminishing at all, say they don't believe in gravity, honestly believe that the person is trying to say that there is no climate change at all or humans are having zero impact, and take the conversation into a bizarre and often off topic direction.

This is the sort of thing which makes having a rational discussion about climate change difficult, and is probably the main reason we see laymen being sceptical of the narrative. The other main this is the mainstream media doing something similar (but less extreme), and then there is the climate science itself being biased (much, much less extreme, but still an issue). But, raise any of these points, or question any detail of the narrative, even the blatantly absurd versions, and they quickly believe you are a 100% climate denier (sic) and go on bizarre rants. It's a similar mentality to religious extremists. It's quite interesting really.

 

[rederob]

But what people like them will do is imply or work on the assumption that since we only have a few decades of data it was virtually constant for the previous few centuries, maybe thousands or millions of years.

Completely false claim.
We have over a century of data. Satellite data has been available since the 1970s.

They exaggerate the data.

Another false claim - I link to the data sources, and post charts.

...they'll descend into ad hominem attacks...

Another false claim.
I clearly state that your claims are mostly rubbish, nonsensical, and stupid!
You could be intelligent - but your posts here do not reflect that.
You are unable to distinguish attacking poor logic, knowledge and stupid commentary from attacking one's character.

For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims....

Utterly false, again;
the majority of climate science consider your claim to be unfounded.
Until you can reflect what climate science shows, you will keep making ill informed comments.
Worse, you suggest it is those who quote and link to the actual science that are unable to debate it.
You really are not up to it here, and to date I have seen few who hold positions like yours to be anywhere near competent regarding the science.

 

[rederob]

Just as I’m sure we would agree the fact that 2019 had the highest maximum winter sea ice extent of the last 5 years, is irrelevant to the trend?

And:

By the way. Re-read my comment. I said it is NOT relevant that 2019 had a 5 year maximum ice extent. NOT relevant. Yet you are reacting as if I was saying it countered the trend.

It is relevant that 2019 had a maximum sea ice extent, because it reflects a possible intensification of short term seasonality due to weather factors.
It may be that future years continue to hold above 14 million square kilometres - we will have to wait and see.
While there is a "trend" towards overall average lower ice extent, the stronger capture of the warming trend is the rate of decline from peaks. This is due to thinner ice, reduced albedo and warmer seas.
The point I was making related to separating weather factors from very clear climate trends.
Your posts continue to confuse many concepts.

 

[Sdajii]

Completely false claim.
We have over a century of data. Satellite data has been available since the 1970s.
Another false claim - I link to the data sources, and post charts.
Another false claim.
I clearly state that your claims are mostly rubbish, nonsensical, and stupid!
You could be intelligent - but your posts here do not reflect that.
You are unable to distinguish attacking poor logic, knowledge and stupid commentary from attacking one's character.
Utterly false, again;
the majority of climate science consider your claim to be unfounded.
Until you can reflect what climate science shows, you will keep making ill informed comments.
Worse, you suggest it is those who quote and link to the actual science that are unable to debate it.
You really are not up to it here, and to date I have seen few who hold positions like yours to be anywhere near competent regarding the science.

LOL

So much nonsense, it's almost tempting to pick through it.

Ah, what the heck.

Yes, you post links, often biased, then exaggerate it.

Hehe, okay, if using excessive negative emotional words excessively isn't ad hominem attacking, I guess you don't use ad hominem attacks. My mistake.

Hehehehe, you think climate scientists say humans are the only thing causing climate change. Righto!

Enjoy your Sunday afternoon

 

[rederob]

Hehehehe, you think climate scientists say humans are the only thing causing climate change.

No.
I do not think that.
That is how climate science define climate change.

 

[Sdajii]

No.
I do not think that.
That is how climate science define climate change.

Clearly, I was using the term 'climate change' to mean 'climate change' rather than 'exclusively human-caused climate change', otherwise it wouldn't even make sense.

Obviously 'exclusively human-caused climate change. that is, the part of climate change which is caused my humans' is exclusively caused by humans.

But the official definition of "climate change" does not rule out the existence of natural climate change. It's just that when people refer to climate change they are often referring to the human-caused part of it.

Would you honestly call someone wrong if they said "Climate change has existed for hundreds of millions of years"? Because according to your claim, it would actually be incorrect.

Yes, the majority of climate scientists claim that the majority of the current change in climate is being caused by humans (they may be right and I'm not arguing). That doesn't mean the definition of 'climate change' is 'exclusively the part of climate change caused by humans'.

Google 'climate change' and you'll get information reflecting this.

 

[rederob]

Would you honestly call someone wrong if they said "Climate change has existed for hundreds of millions of years"? Because according to your claim, it would actually be incorrect.

Yes.
They would be as ignorant of the science as you continue to be.
That's not their fault - not many people read science every week.
What you are talking about is the general knowledge which we have about climate in that it can and does change.
You are also talking about the people who deny climate change by invoking an argument of the obvious, not an understanding of the science of climate.

Google 'climate change' and you'll get information reflecting this.

I prefer to reference the science when discussing climate science.

 

[Sdajii]

Yes.
They would be as ignorant of the science as you continue to be.
That's not their fault - not many people read science every week.
What you are talking about is the general knowledge which we have about climate in that it can and does change.
You are also talking about the people who deny climate change by invoking an argument of the obvious, not an understanding of the science of climate.
I prefer to reference the science when discussing climate science.

So you openly display that you are willing to stick to semantics in favour of acting as though someone means and thinks what you actually know they mean and think. You will use your own version of the meaning of their words rather than either their own obvious meaning, even if their own meaning is the mainstream way those words are used. This is pathetic. You are not worth talking to. You are either disgustingly disingenuous or mentally deranged. And by your own way of thinking this does not count as an ad hominem because I am simply stating facts directly related to your actions.

 

[Ann]

 

[kahuna1]

Lets discuss gravity and its no existence ?
A discussion about irrefutable facts, ones beyond even reasonable questioning and this topic about arctic ice is beyond that via satellite coverage since 1978, yet here we go again.

I note conspiracy theorist number one is back .... still room to join the party !!

Must run, pushing members of the non gravity club off the cliff and see if their theory works for them. It does work for me however .... the results are NOT what the members expected.

They seem unable to voice or communicate their conspiracies after the experiment !!

Hi sanidijji .... welcome back ... and what lies beneath the Arctic Ice and its been there for a million years, frozen perfectly ... which would seem to make your other stuff you just said rubbish.
Permafrost and a FROZEN record of plants and animals going back a million years.

Since your theory involves some heating period in the meantime, did Santa plant full Mammoths and froze them there recently ? Since i think even the casual person knows they have recovered numerous fully frozen perfectly intact Mammoths 40,000- to 60,000 years old, does this mean your theory about some hot period in the last 100,000 years is rubbish ?

Did Santa plant them there ? Or did they defrost, during your warm period and NOT decay ?

Come to my gravity party ... its one you will enjoy.

 

[Sdajii]

For those wanting to take a critical look at the delusion afflicting some of the alarmists, kahuna provides a useful example. Even when people fully agree that humans are making an impact on the climate, anyone who questions the relevance of irrelevant data or the most extreme narratives gets likened to moon landing conspiracy nuts, flat Earth nuts, tobacco health issue deniers, etc. The tactic is not to calmly analyse the data and assess its merits, it is to use irrelevancy, peculiar insults, ad hominem and other emotional-based tactics, and when pulled up on it, of course there's silly denial.

I note conspiracy theorist number one is back .... still room to join the party !!

Here he begins.

Hi sanidijji .... welcome back ... and what lies beneath the Arctic Ice and its been there for a million years, frozen perfectly ... which would seem to make your other stuff you just said rubbish.
Permafrost and a FROZEN record of plants and animals going back a million years.

Here he starts with a childish insult using the corruption of a name. Not anything to do with data, evidence, logic. An attempt at logic is then made, vague as it is. It seems he is trying to make the incorrect assertion that the world is currently hotter than at any time in over a million years, vaguely linking it back to something he of course doesn't want to specify. Of course, in reality, in various ways, things can be frozen and unfrozen without the entire planet's average temperature being directly related. But as we see, the alarmist will use fanciful cherry picked tid bits without even directly making claims.

Since your theory involves some heating period in the meantime, did Santa plant full Mammoths and froze them there recently ? Since i think even the casual person knows they have recovered numerous fully frozen perfectly intact Mammoths 40,000- to 60,000 years old, does this mean your theory about some hot period in the last 100,000 years is rubbish ?

In his emotional frenzy, basic maths eludes the alarmist. His argument is that since something has been frozen for over 40,000 years, it disproves a warm period in the previous 100,000 years. Even the basic fact that 100,000 years is more than 40,000 years does not stop him thinking this makes sense. As we consistently see, it is only the narrative which is important to these individuals, not things actually making sense. If it supports the narrative, it needs to evidence, logic or analysis. If it goes against the narrative, no evidence, no matter how tangible, reliable or even self evidence is sufficient, there is always a way to dismiss it.

Did Santa plant them there ? Or did they defrost, during your warm period and NOT decay ?

And again he goes back to this emotional, non sensical strategy.

Come to my gravity party ... its one you will enjoy.

And this is his closing remark.

When it is pointed out to him that his posts are emotional tantrums, he typically denies it then has an emotional tantrum in the same response post.

Unfortunately, this sort of lunacy being on the 'climate change side' kills the credibility of that side. People are naturally inclined to sit in groups, to find and identify with like-minded people. Many people can not identify with this sort of nonsense and are thus driven to the so-called 'climate denier' side, which painfully, often makes more sense than the alarmist side, despite typically also being absurd. However, since the alarmists are more vocal and prevalent and claim to have the backing of mainstream culture and science despite not sticking to the science, many people are driven to what they see as the only alternative, they distrust the entire narrative and stop taking it seriously.

Because of the natural inclination of people to want to join groups, there is an assumption that all people belong to one or the other, since this issue is so polarised. As soon as someone questions anything at all from the narrative, most people assume they belong to the opposite camp. It is quite interesting to see this happen, with people assuming that someone believes or has even said things which the opposing side has as part of their narrative, even when it is not the case.

Clearly there is a lot of delusion, and of course it does exist on both sides.

Much of this is very much found in many areas where people are polarised, particularly left/right politics, and also there are often assumptions about crossovers. For example, if someone is anti abortion, there is often an assumption that they are also anti gay marriage, or if someone is not willing to follow the extreme version of the climate narrative, there is the assumption that they follow various extreme right wing political stances. We see plenty of examples of this in this thread from posters such as kahuna and rederob (and others).

 

[kahuna1]

Your theories are ...

Delusional ... I covered all 26 of them.Already ...

things that are beyond questioning, something that is irrefutable, not able to be sanely questioned get equal billing, in your opinion and world. If anything, the tendency in modern times if for a source, deliberately incorrect or some fantasy, conspiracy or ideology that agrees with your views, opinions and beliefs supersedes irrefutable incontrovertible evidence.

Welcome to Climate denial !! Science and Gravity no longer operate there, in your world. Debating irrefutable incontrovertible evidence seems to be your idea of reality.

Yes Santa does live at the North Pole and kept them frozen !!! How long was this warming period ? ... No I will go ask Santa. He kept the 40,000 year old frozen mammoth frozen for the time it warmed in the last 100,000 years according to you. All its hair still intact, its last meal frozen inside, intact.

Well done Santa

 

[rederob]

You will use your own version of the meaning of their words rather than either their own obvious meaning, even if their own meaning is the mainstream way those words are used.

I continue to use the science of climate change.
You choose to create what you prefer to believe.
You continue to make false claims.

You are either disgustingly disingenuous or mentally deranged. And by your own way of thinking this does not count as an ad hominem because I am simply stating facts directly related to your actions.

This merely confirms how you make up what you want to believe.
I attack what you say.
In relation to climate science you are not well educated.

 

[rederob]

Many people can not identify with this sort of nonsense and are thus driven to the so-called 'climate denier' side, which painfully, often makes more sense than the alarmist side, despite typically also being absurd.

Even if that were true that people may not identify with some posters, it defies logic to propose that they would not use their brains to work out what constituted evidence and what did not.
You make repeated claims which are proven false and think nothing of it.
You seldom understand that you post nothing of merit, even after it is shown to have no relevance.

For example, if someone is anti abortion, there is often an assumption that they are also anti gay marriage, or if someone is not willing to follow the extreme version of the climate narrative, there is the assumption that they follow various extreme right wing political stances. We see plenty of examples of this in this thread from posters such as kahuna and rederob (and others).

Yet another example of a strawman argument from you.
Climate science is not related to abortion or gay marriage.
Climate science can be measured, has been measured, and has a theory underpinning it as means to explaining what is occurring.
You fall into the trap of false equivalence, not for the first time.
You epitomise the posters that cannot present the science to underpin their commentary and instead revert to irrelevant distraction.
Because you are unable to be coherent on climate matters you use "alarmists" to refer to an undefined group that is only realised in the ballpark you play in.
At what point do you actually put some science into you commentary?
Or, at least provide evidence to support your unusual claims.

 

[Ann]

 

[kahuna1]

Zimov's theory and now he's published dozens of papers in science journals


Dates it 800,000 to a million years OLD .... the permafrost ...

He is even accepted by skeptics as the expert in the field.

Oooh we have them both back ... welcome after your nap !!

 

[Sdajii]

...and kahuna continues the demonstration of the irrational, fanatical, dogmatic, emotion-based alarmist. As said, they are prone to emotional tantrums and nonsensical rambling.

Your theories are ...

Delusional ... I covered all 26 of them.Already ...

It's unclear if he actually counted and tried to categorise them or simply pulled a random number for dramatic effect, but either way, here we see an example of them making unassessable claims with zero evidence.

things that are beyond questioning, something that is irrefutable, not able to be sanely questioned get equal billing, in your opinion and world. If anything, the tendency in modern times if for a source, deliberately incorrect or some fantasy, conspiracy or ideology that agrees with your views, opinions and beliefs supersedes irrefutable incontrovertible evidence.

More nonsensical tantrum which doesn't even have an attempt at being related to anything specific.

Welcome to Climate denial !! Science and Gravity no longer operate there, in your world. Debating irrefutable incontrovertible evidence seems to be your idea of reality.

Once again we see the alarmist using the tired strawman tactic. Making the accusation of 'climate denial' (sic) despite it having been repeatedly made clear that this is incorrect, and continuing on with bizarre accusations of denial of science and gravity etc. Clearly these are used in place of actual arguments or reasoning ability.

And the conclusion is once again an irrational tantrum, literally talking about Santa Claus, attempting to relate it back to the logically flawed attempted argument in the previous post, with no extra basis other than something about Santa.

Yes Santa does live at the North Pole and kept them frozen !!! How long was this warming period ? ... No I will go ask Santa. He kept the 40,000 year old frozen mammoth frozen for the time it warmed in the last 100,000 years according to you. All its hair still intact, its last meal frozen inside, intact.

Well done Santa

 

[kahuna1]

The age of the ARCTIC permafrost ... is NOT able to be questioned. Carbon dating is quite accurate. The decay of the various atoms .... Yet you do ...

Evidence and links already provided .... and ignored as per usual.

somehow during your supposed warming period ..100,000 years ago ... . IT DID NOT MELT.

This is your latest theory, NOT mine ..

At the other end of the earth,ANTARCTIC ... ICE BUBBLES capturing the AIR and CO2 content dating also back in the 800,000 to a million year range ... which I might add 5 nations have drilled ice cores to sample CO2 and other gasses back a million years ....

You also dispute and refute this

ICE aged 800,000 to a milli0on years at both extremes of the planet, the polar regions and BOTH clearly frozen for nearly a million years and you ...

Deny it ? All date is questioned, even satellite data on CO2 ... all ground stations, even one 16,000 km away from any land ... the wind blowing over the ocean ...

And all data dismissed.

How if there was some warming period did the ICE and PERMAFROST frozen stuff survive ?

Surely even the stupid know the top layers of the Permafrost with the most recent material ... with Frozen Mammoths would have thawed and decayed. not being pristine and still with stomach contents ... woolly fur and even eyeballs preserved. Below the top layers ... deeper you go older it gets ....

Santa ? Aliens ? You seriously must tell us how this occurred. Pristine never been thawed, ergo no warming period of any significance your alluding to ....

But still ... you drool your theories. Something occurred 100,000 years ago ... a magical global warming period ... according to you !!

ICE stopped melting as well ?

BTW this is number 27 of your quite bizarre theories.

Santa cant be two places at once.
Either he lives at the North Pole or South Pole !!

 

[rederob]

Sdajii, here's your sole Page 102 contribution which specifically mentions science:

For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims, the fact that arctic ice diminishing is not in itself evidence of humans causing it.

First, if there is climate change, what is its nature.
Second, if there is climate change, who is confirming it?
Third, what theory explains climate change?
Fourth, if climate change is explained by a theory, how is it described?
Fifth, if Arctic sea ice is diminishing, could it be due to "chance"?
Sixth, in probability theory how can a statistical trend be regarded as a "chance"?
Finally, you said: "Making the accusation of 'climate denial' (sic) despite it having been repeatedly made clear that this is incorrect, and continuing on with bizarre accusations of denial of science...." Which means you can answer the above questions without contradicting what you claim.