Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 45 28.1%

  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 41 25.6%

  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 74 46.3%
  • Total voters
    160
captainmorgan said:
Eastern Antarctica is 70f above it's normal temp.
Click to expand...

I read that article as well. They have less than a century of data to go off and that particular weather event is an anomaly that may be common over the span of hundreds/thousands of years (the atmospheric river.) You should really link the article for context. It’s not doom and gloom. Now pollution finding its way to the Antarctic is something I really worry about. We’re fucking up our oceans, and by we I mean humans
 
Fogdog said:
Why did you trigger so hard on a simple reported observation, @nuskool89 ?

Eastern Antarctica is 70f above it's normal temp.
Click to expand...

Arctic sea ice is the second highest it’s been in 18 years

I’ll just leave that sentence there with zero context. See how that goes both ways? The why matters. You’re clearly the one triggered as I wasn’t speaking to you, and you felt the need to interject, in response to said triggering.
 
nuskool89 said:
Arctic sea ice is the second highest it’s been in 18 years

I’ll just leave that sentence there with zero context. See how that goes both ways? The why matters. You’re clearly the one triggered as I wasn’t speaking to you, and you felt the need to interject, in response to said triggering.
Click to expand...
What is the significance of Arctic sea ice being the second highest it's been in 18 years? What does that mean to you?
 
nuskool89 said:
Arctic sea ice is the second highest it’s been in 18 years

I’ll just leave that sentence there with zero context. See how that goes both ways? The why matters. You’re clearly the one triggered as I wasn’t speaking to you, and you felt the need to interject, in response to said triggering.
Click to expand...
That is a cherry picked range?

'70 degrees above the average temp' is not really a cherry picked range since it is the entire average.
 
hanimmal said:
That is a cherry picked range?

'70 degrees above the average temp' is not really a cherry picked range since it is the entire average.
Click to expand...

my point is

The Antarctic 70 degrees above normal (edit: eastern Antarctica)

Isn’t climate change or “climate in the 21st century,” based off of the information given in the article. There are many other pieces of data and studies to cite that would better suit the discussion or support climate change claims.

from the article quote:

“Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.”
 
Last edited:
nuskool89 said:
my point is

The Antarctic 70 degrees above normal

Isn’t climate change or “climate in the 21st century,” based off of the information given in the article. There are many other pieces of data and studies to cite that would better suit the discussion or support climate change claims.

from the article quote:

“Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.”
Click to expand...
Omitting their adverb in your paraphrase is dishonest. It generates an impression of fact when there is only guesswork.
 
nuskool89 said:
my point is

The Antarctic 70 degrees above normal

Isn’t climate change or “climate in the 21st century,” based off of the information given in the article. There are many other pieces of data and studies to cite that would better suit the discussion or support climate change claims.

from the article quote:

“Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.”
Click to expand...
No individual point in time is ever anything but random.

But really at this point is there any reason to naysay about all the evidence that is very clearly showing our abuse of the planet has seriously screwed it up? I may not agree with everything that you say, or maybe even most of it, but you never seemed entirely irrational. We really need to do things far cleaner than we have been. All the pollution (land sea and sky) is and has been way out of hand, and the little 'nuh-uh's that people are triggered into when they want to nitpick this fact is just more noise.
 
cannabineer said:
Omitting their adverb in your paraphrase is dishonest. It generates an impression of fact when there is only guesswork.
Click to expand...

you mean eastern Antarctica? That wasn’t intentional and if anything solidifies it being a weather anomaly even more as other parts of the Antarctic are not experiencing the event
 
hanimmal said:
No individual point in time is ever anything but random.

But really at this point is there any reason to naysay about all the evidence that is very clearly showing our abuse of the planet has seriously screwed it up? I may not agree with everything that you say, or maybe even most of it, but you never seemed entirely irrational. We really need to do things far cleaner than we have been. All the pollution (land sea and sky) is and has been way out of hand, and the little 'nuh-uh's that people are triggered into when they want to nitpick this fact is just more noise.
Click to expand...

Guys, practice what you preach. Relax. Anytime someone just says a statement without context in here 5 people blow up at that person asking for links, websites, graphs, charts, etc. I merely suggested the article be linked and that that particular headline isn’t the whole story. I read it in full this morning so it’s fresh on the mind. I saw the post and responded to it. It’s not an attack or meant to be a me vs him
 
nuskool89 said:
Guys, practice what you preach. Relax. Anytime someone just says a statement without context in here 5 people blow up at that person asking for links, websites, graphs, charts, etc. I merely suggested the article be linked and that that particular headline isn’t the whole story. I read it in full this morning so it’s fresh on the mind. I saw the post and responded to it. It’s not an attack or meant to be a me vs him
Click to expand...
You lost me at 'practice what you preach'.

I was pointing out the cherry picking, not really anything new for me, and something I actively try hard to not do.
 
nuskool89 said:
you mean eastern Antarctica? That wasn’t intentional and if anything solidifies it being a weather anomaly even more as other parts of the Antarctic are not experiencing the event
Click to expand...
Eastern is not an adverb. Fail.
I showed you what omitting the adverb distorts. You should be able to figure it out from context. This provides insight into your thought process.
 
cannabineer said:
Eastern is not an adverb. Fail.
I showed you what omitting the adverb distorts. You should be able to figure it out from context. This provides insight into your thought process.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry man you’re right I glazed over that. You mean those two from the article saying “probably.”
 
nuskool89 said:
my point is

The Antarctic 70 degrees above normal

Isn’t climate change or “climate in the 21st century,” based off of the information given in the article. There are many other pieces of data and studies to cite that would better suit the discussion or support climate change claims.

from the article quote:

“Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.”
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, you found one sentence in a report that you could get behind.

By itself, the high temperature found in what is typically the coldest place on earth isn't significant. It is notable, it catches people's attention, which is why the media loves it and why it apparently irritated you enough to respond to Morgan's post. The authors make it clear that the event was outside of what they expected could happen. To them, it's a head scratcher. The event told the scientists they have something unexpected to figure out. Once they do, then they will have a better understanding and better modeling capability. That's how much of science advances.

So, the 70 F upward swing in temperature doesn't prove Antarctica's climate is changing. We don't really need to prove that from one measurement. We have much more than one data point to show that Antarctica's climate is getting warmer along with the rest of the globe due to burning fossil fuels. This is settled science.

"but the arctic sea ice" lulz
 
Fogdog said:
Yes, yes, you found one sentence in a report that you could get behind.

By itself, the high temperature found in what is typically the coldest place on earth isn't significant. It is notable, it catches people's attention, which is why the media loves it and why it apparently irritated you enough to respond to Morgan's post. The authors make it clear that the event was outside of what they expected could happen. To them, it's a head scratcher. The event told the scientists they have something unexpected to figure out. Once they do, then they will have a better understanding and better modeling capability. That's how much of science advances.

So, the 70 F upward swing in temperature doesn't prove Antarctica's climate is changing. We don't really need to prove that from one measurement. We have much more than one data point to show that Antarctica's climate is getting warmer along with the rest of the globe due to burning fossil fuels. This is settled science.

"but the arctic sea ice" lulz
Click to expand...
Google didn’t push this story my way so I looked it up. The good news is that the anomalous temps were still below or at freezing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top