bobjohnsonforthehall

Fixed the apparent misspelling

Or it's not headed towards disaster.

Oh sweet merciful crap. Yes...we'll all be dead by 2050. Just like every other doomsday prediction that has come true. Oh wait... If my eyes rolled any further to the back of my head I could see Russia from my house. Seriously though. The more people who believe in this that choose not to procreate the better we will all be going forward. So by all means have at it. Or actually don't "have at it" as the case may be.

Per Chang et al, the average annual change in ocean heat content is 5.5 zettajoules per year...about 0.1% of the energy entering and leaving the ocean. Yet all we hear like a constant drum beat is that this tiniest of imbalances is due to human causes. We never hear about IPCC or others noting other possible causes. It is always humans. It is always critical. It is always an impending catastrophe, and it always requires a massive restructuring of human activity. When science runs into politics it generally degrades science.

Perhaps, but you are still not looking at a "mass extinction". This is still at the species level. The term "mass extiction" carries a lot of weight and thus is thrown around to scare people. A better, more accurate term could be used to describe the goings on, but it won't be, because it wouldn't scare enough people. So "mass extinction" we get I suppose. Correct or not.

"Hiroshima bombs" sounds so bad and scary. That's why it is used. Scare the masses.

One float covers an area the size of Portugal for goodness sake. And two kilometers deep. Are we to believe that one data point covering the entire country of Portugal is an accurate representation of temperature for the entire country? I should hope not. If we want to get within .03 instead of .003 accuracy, we could do so using 1/100th the number of points of measurement. So you are saying that we would be able to get within .03 of the actual temperature of the entire ocean with just 40 data points? I'm gonna say no to that one. Which is why I am saying that getting within .003 using 4000 data points is equally absurd.

Argo in situ calibration experiments reveal measurement errors of about ±0.6 C. Hadfield, et al., (2007), J. Geophys. Res., 112, C01009, doi:10.1029/2006JC003825 False precision is fun.

Jan 2014 Skeptical Science: “… in 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second” https://skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html So I guess we are looking better then? Five Hiroshima bombs is the equivilant of 0.6 watts per square meter. Downwelling energy at the surface is about half a kilowatt per square meter. Context.

Correct. Just pointing out that the old "Hiroshima bomb" tripe is used for sensationalism and is not in any sort of context. I am simply giving it context.

This is what I mean by science being so unscientific. Biologists don't understand what "mass extinctions" are I guess? Mass extinctions go far beyond a species level to entire genera, families, orders, classes and sub-phyla. Species extinction does not equate to "mass extinction". It also doesn't take into account new species that are forming or being discovered all the time. So don't be shocked. Understand that a mass extinction is not really happening.

Wind and solar are not reliable. Energy needs to be reliable. Nuclear is a big win for everyone, and the technology available today makes it very safe.

This is correct. But the way for those countries to move from "developing" to "developed" is through the use of fossil fuels. Something that you seem to want to deny them.

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard.

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you.

That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk".

Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt.

Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing.

Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness.

So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue.

Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much?

Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI. As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example. You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks. Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we?