Just outlaw weather, bro.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (19)
sorted by:
Bro, you have to care about climate change, bro. It's serious. The sea levels are rising, bro. The polar bears are all drowning, bro.
OMG! STOP MISGANDEEERING MEEEEEEEEE
Climate Change is a problem, and I have seen almost no legislation that would do anything but destroy the economy and do absolutely nothing to improve the environment.
When Michael Moore has to point out your Leftist bullshit, your Leftist bullshit has gone fully awry.
Nothing humanity will ever do can stop the planet from going through its natural climate cycle.
Bolsheviks know this and use everyone else's ignorance of how the planet works to fleece money by funding "studies" that produce nothing of value through a myriad of shady NGOs that then create rigged models to convince everyone in their victim nations to give up more and more rights.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't shit where we eat and make things worse for ourselves unnecessarily.
This statement is correct. But it's also not the same as actual climate science.
Subverted Science is why you get "studies" that claim the earth will be irreversibly damaged in 12 years from climate change, and why "gender is a spectrum". But real climatology exists, and so does real biological anatomy and physiology.
If real climatology exists, its probably hiding somewhere in Antarctica so it can get accurate readings.
I mean, they actually do that in Antarctica.
Is it? No actual increase in the rates of sea level rise has been measured since industrialization. Increase in temperature is mostly based on models. If you look at actual individual weather stations the rate of increase in temperature hasn't changed since industrialization. CO2 is a weak green house gas and all the catastrophic predictions are based on strong positive feedbacks multiplying CO2's effect. There's no support that there is a strong positive feedback besides simulations which is ridiculous; we don't have the computing power to determine the boiling point of water by simulation (true story) let alone the planet's weather.
It is a problem because it means changing growing habitats and regions for agriculture and habitation. Food and Migration are going to continue to be an issue for the forseeable future until governments losen their grip on food control, and figure out a way to deal with depopulation of cities (hint: they sometimes do the former, but never do the latter).
Yes there is, and it's something around an inch or so?
And we are talking about a game of inches here because a few feet of sea level rise would flood hundreds of millions of people out of their cities.
The temperature models have been relatively accurate and those are coming from aggregate data (because they have to, no one measured weather well 500 years ago). I can tell you in my own personal experience that I can recognize the average temperature change where I live has been obvious over the past 30 years.
It doesn't matter that CO2 is a """weak""" greenhouse gas when it's so numerous. I'm not really worried about the catastrophic "predictions" which aren't based in the science. Positive feedbacks aren't a surprise, the hope is that the positive feedbacks are mitigated by plant growth, which is likely.
This is a dumb argument.
We know the boiling point of water is 210 F / 100 C. Yes, modeling water is hard, especially when you are measuring each and every single H20 molecule. That does not mean that computer simulations just can't work.
Rate. The sea level is rising but it's rising at the same rate it has pre-1950. It's not caused by humans its caused by coming off the little ice age in the short term and an ice age in the long term.
The temp models have not been accurate. And Americans have been measuring temperature since the nineteenth century and it's not that fucking hard. Most of the rise in temp has been from running the raw data through models which is where almost all the heating has come from.
Why? Positive feedbacks imply an unstable climate. You'd think any planet with life would have a stable climate which implies negative feedbacks.
If you can't model a few molecules of water, you can't model the entire climate AND EVERYTHING IS BASED ON MODELS.
When you are talking about global average air temperatures, yes it fucking its. When you start calculating historical temperatures, it is also very hard.
Yeah, why would anyone try to model data? Clearly the problem with the data is that someone tabulated it.
Exactly, water simulations are easy, any idiot could do it.
Right, and since data was added to a model, then we know that all of the conclusions are inaccurate. Thank you for debunking all of science.
Your entire criticism of the models comes down to an ignorance of how modeling works. You build a model, using known data to come to conclusions that reflect known results, until you refine the model to be consistent enough so that it gives reliable results within your margin of error. Models also only work within their resolution, meaning that some models work under larger more abstract environment, and some other models work under heavy specificity. The more you insist on something to become 100% perfectly accurate, the more difficult the calculations for that model become. It's why physics uses pulley problems at basically every level. You start off in an abstract simple pulley, but you'll still be doing the same pulley problems using discrete mathematics when you start being asked to identify how a chain pulley works at each link, or how a rope pulley works as it's tinsel strength is tested and rotates.
Your criticism is that: "If a pulley problem is so hard to model, then it's must be impossible to model something as complex as a vehicle." No.
You ignored the part where I said that plant life would likely be a mitigating factor. You've decided to throw that out entirely and assert that I said that all climatology is a positive feedback loop.
I didn't. Positive feedbacks aren't a surprise, and nor are negative feedbacks. Chemistry and Biology have both of them.
I think you might have missed the point about models. Sure, you can use models to very accurately describe complex systems -- as long as the basic equations of the model are well understood and tested. Finite element modelling of Maxwell's equations are wonderfully accurate, for example.
With global warming, though, the assertion is that the trace amounts of extra carbon allegedly being pumped into the atmosphere will cause a positive feedback loop with water vapour -- a much more prevalent and effective 'greenhouse gas'.
The problem is that no one knows the strength of that positive feedback. In fact, you literally can't come up with a reasonable theory that would predict that strength. So you're left with two options. (1) guess; (2) use past CO2/Temperature data to determine the strength. Of course, if you look at the temperature record, there has been literally zero accelerated warming -- meaning that the warming trend has been linear -- so there's not really a basis for any of this modelling.
Furthermore, as Lord Monckton of Brenchly is fond of pointing out, the warming takes massive hiatuses. Right now there's been no warming for the last 8 years.
Also, the data sets involved are themselves mostly garbage, largely because: who ever cared about a number as pointless as 'global average temperature'?
I don't know whether I'm more disappointed in global warming 'physicists' or vaccine-pushing doctors.
And methane, and a few dozen other greenhouse gas emissions that cause warming, which cause more gas releases.
Then Lord Monckton is saying something that is absolutely stupid. It's like saying "hurricanes take massive hiatuses" because I don't get any in the winter.
What you're referring to is that there's been no further breakthroughs from the highest recorded average surface temperature on record. Okay, cool. All of the yearly average surface temperatures are still the highest within 200 years.
It would be more odd if the temperature increases never stopped surpassing the previous high each year for 20 years. I'd be pretty fucking worried about that.
No, it's been exponential, If you seclude yourself to only the past 8 years, it doesn't look linear, it just looks like a block of different temperatures, but this isn't abnormal for the past 100 years of warming.
I don't mean to belabour a point here... but can you really look at the Alabama-Huntsville data (available at Dr Roy Spencer's website ) and call that exponential growth?
The growth seems stepwise, like the ninos/ninas occasionally dump heat into the atmosphere.
The problem with using HADCRUT is that the data from different time periods is collected using different methods. For instance, there wasn't too much thermometer coverage of the ocean back in 1921! The Alabama data gives us a 43 year window of consistent data. HADCRUT also gives us a similar number of years of consistent data.
On the other hand, if you trust HADCRUT back to 1850 or 1900, then I suppose there are any number of functions that you could fit to that data! Then we'd be in a situation where we'd have to agree to disagree.
I shall follow in the footsteps of noted Climate Change activist and lawmaker Barack Obama, and buy seafront beachside property and take gas intensive private jets and limos everywhere I go.
I thought his solution was to imprison people who disagree with him on this climate cult.
Ah yes, bill Nye, the a-level* engineering guy
Depending on his alma mater of course