Stav, Climate Change...

Sure, Ayling. How's the weather on planet Meton today?

All good Redtit.

Thanks for asking.

How's the weather in Ballsack Lane today?

Hiya Vrottie

Have you figured out the difference between white supremacists and antifA yet?

Also, did you manage to look up the meaning of per capita?

I know the questions were aimed at Sharkbok but I think I can help clear up your confusion . . . 

White supremacists are a group of people who believe their white skin makes them superior to other races. There are many examples of these people throughout history and outside the USA (like the AWB here in SA for example) but for the purposes of this exercise, examples in the USA today include the Ku Klux Klan, the Proud Boys, Ayran Nations and the White League.

Antifa (anti-facism) is a concept. It's not a group of people, it's simply the word to describe the opposition that educated, intelligent, tolerant and broad-minded people have to fascism.

Hope that clears things up for you, Dumb Plum. As for the concept of per capita, here is a link to help you. Please let me know if you're still struggling and I'll try dumb it down for you.

What in the hell are you on about? 

In the absence of groups similar in proportion and/or reputation to their right-wing counterparts, Antifa is what the US's rioting problem is known as.  

All 12 years old and look like they come out of the character creator on a post-apocalyptic open-world game. 

Antifa or Far cry 5?

But sure. I'll go along with that Rooi.

Let's name them for future reference.

I'm gonna go with "Spineless, lawless, unbearable thugs & squeakers!"

S.L.U.T.S

See what I did there...cos we know they're predominantly incels hahaha

"They are both radicals on the opposite of the coin. "

Indeed, but it seems only the radical right-wingers get called out...wrong is wrong no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from...Antifa might have started off as a concept but has been coopted into a radical leftist movement which is ironically not anti-facist...quite the opposite in reality...it's all theater...

"If/when Trump loses, there is going to be right-wing terrorism that will need to be suppressed. "

As opposed to the lefty terrorism that followed Trump's victory in 2016? I think it's unlikely...if the right-wingers were such a threat in the USA, we would have seen much more radicalism under the Obama presidency...

It’s all nonsense....there are a few right wing cooks like the nutters in Michigan ....just as you have left wing elements exploiting BLM, Antifa and the Nation of Islam which is horribly anti Semitic.

But two things are new. Never in the US have riots been used as extensively as a political tool....as this year. And second, never has the deep state tried to create a non violent coup to undo the results of a Presidential election.

The stunning thing is these actions have been supported by the leadership and the majority of the Democratic Party, to their everlasting shame.

You sure about this?

"I don't believe that either group has actively participated in trying to get "their" wing to do these protests or the terrorist actions that subsequently followed."

But two things are new. Never in the US have riots been used as extensively as a political tool....as this year. And second, never has the deep state tried to create a non violent coup to undo the results of a Presidential election.

I agree, the end is near.

By Tuesday evening, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported 7.9 inches of snow, the earliest in the season that the Twin Cities have measured this much snow. The airport fell just shy of its all-time snowiest October day, which stands at 8.2 inches from Oct. 31, 1991.

Previously, the earliest that 4 inches or more of snow had fallen in Minneapolis was on Oct. 29, which occurred more than a century ago in 1905. On that date, 5.5 inches were recorded.

....... 

Would this really be happening if global warming is accelerating... ..not unless you have a really long tail on the probability distribution. 

And yet another year passes without a 100 degree day in Chicago, something that was a regular occurrence.

It would be really interesting to get an honest review of all the data but don’t hold your breath.

"What is not clear is how much impact this is all causing. 

What's more important is how much is natural. 

For example, were the Tsunami waves caused by man-made impact on the environment or just a natural disaster that would have happened anyway."

Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, volcanos and underwater landslides. Humans can at best cause earth tremors.

You probably meant to say hurricanes. They're more directly linked to global temperatures yet by no means an existential threat.

On balance, natural disasters are a far bigger threat than global warming. While you're arguing whether CO2 is the devil, the earth is constantly at risk from catastrophic celestial impact, supervolcanoes, pole shifts, sunspots and tsunamis. All of which have occurred previously and will occur again. 

You could argue that there is no harm in reducing CO2. The question is, how many resources do you spend on reducing global warming and at what level does that spending become negligent in light of other catastrophic threats?

The asteroid belt contains an estimated 1.1 - 1.9 million asteroids that are over a kilometre in size. 

The word "estimated" above, should frighten the hell out of you. We a) don't know how many there are, b) have no idea if one will strike us and c) have no means to prevent one striking us even if we detect it early.

30 new near-earth asteroid are discovered each week.

Now, how many resources do we need to chuck at this threat? Answer - fucking tons more than what is currently being done.

Sleep tight.

"What's more important is how much is natural. "

The data and research indicated the current warming is being driven by anthropocentric causes not natural causes.

"On balance, natural disasters are a far bigger threat than global warming. While you're arguing whether CO2 is the devil, the earth is constantly at risk from catastrophic celestial impact, supervolcanoes, pole shifts, sunspots and tsunamis. All of which have occurred previously and will occur again. 

You could argue that there is no harm in reducing CO2. The question is, how many resources do you spend on reducing global warming and at what level does that spending become negligent in light of other catastrophic threats?

The asteroid belt contains an estimated 1.1 - 1.9 million asteroids that are over a kilometre in size. 

The word "estimated" above, should frighten the hell out of you. We a) don't know how many there are, b) have no idea if one will strike us and c) have no means to prevent one striking us even if we detect it early.

30 new near-earth asteroid are discovered each week.

Now, how many resources do we need to chuck at this threat? Answer - fucking tons more than what is currently being done."

What your saying is in effect, we shouldn't make too much effort getting out of the way of speeding runaway car that we see coming straight towards us because we may or may not getting hit by a speeding out of control train at some point in the future.

"The data and research indicated the current warming is being driven by anthropocentric causes not natural causes."

How solid is this data?

Beyond doubt? 

It's apparently been beyond doubt since the 60s that human-induced climate catastrophe was just around the corner.

Eco- pocalypse incoming

We don't know exactly how big an existential threat global warming ultimately is anyway, is the truth.

From where I sit, it's speculation on top of more speculation, along a path that has failed to materialise for the last 60 years.

"we shouldn't make too much effort getting out the way"

I said proportional effort based on actual risk. See the difference?

Shark, if you are so ridiculously stupid that you think tsunamis are manmade then perhaps you should rather sit this one out.

Scientists certain that drilling is causing earthquakes

International ocean drilling expedition to understand causes of ...

How Humans Are Causing Deadly Earthquakes

Oil and gas drilling triggers man-made earthquakes in eight ...

Induced seismicity - Wikipedia

Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake | WIRED

Fracking-related Earthquakes - Earthworks

Why is oil and gas activity causing earthquakes? And can we ...

More Earthquakes May Be the Result of Fracking Than We ...

Again, name a man-made Tsunami. 

Or just admit that you didn't know difference between a tsunami and a hurricane.

...all par for the course for you really.

‘Plugging the idea‘ that one spot is unusually snowy. Nope I’m plugging the idea that one place....Chicago...is representative of the world’s second largest land mass. 

And by checking how often that representative example exceeds a given tail end value over say 40 years....one is effectively tuning in to a very large sample.....20 or more cities, over 40 years, with 80 or so days a year when that value is attainable .  

So when I say Chicago used to regularly record 100 degree days, once every 3 or so years and has not  done so since 2012 we are tapping into 3200 observations, which could be extrapolated to some 64000 observations.

So no I’m not saying it’s snowing today.

It’s been seven years since the city last reached an official triple-digit temperature, when a high of 103 was recorded on July 6, 2012. It was the last of four that summer, that started with a high of 100 on June 28, followed by three-in-a-row with highs of 102, and pair of 103s on July 4-6. The city’s only other 100-degree high this century was 102 on July 24, 2005. Dating back to 1871 Chicago has logged just 65 triple-digit days, with the 1988 drought summer logging the most with seven. The city’s earliest 100 was a high of 102 on June 1, 1934 and the latest, 100 degrees on September 7, 1960. Chicago’s all-time official highest temperature was 105 degrees on July 24, 1934, but, though not official, Midway recorded 109 degrees the day before on July 23, 1934.’

........

It’s all just so damn inconvenient.

So no I’m not saying it’s snowing today."

Its a variation on the "its unusually cold today at (insert location)  therefore climate change is not happening argument" that's long been debunked, your just trying to hide it behind numbers.

"It's all just so damn inconvenient."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-chicago-record-hottest-summer-20200901-q6t2ljksongkpfgoy5aqkuj5am-story.html

Yes terribly inconvenient.

" 2020 becomes Chicago’s hottest summer on record, despite few record-setting days"

Hottest on record for June, July and August....sounds dispositive. But then we find that the record broke  the 1955 record by 0.3 F degrees. And over that period the jumped up weathermen assure us we had a one degree centigrade increase in global temps.

I guess on the basis of a 0.3 F increase in the Summer record over 65 years there isn’t much of a global warming case. But if that impresses you  suck on this:

THE IMPRESSIVE COLD THIS PAST WINTER CONTINUED DURING
MARCH...WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF ONLY 31.7 DEGREES
FOR THE MONTH. THIS RANKS AS THE 19TH COLDEST MARCH ON RECORD IN
CHICAGO. HOWEVER...OF EVEN MORE INTEREST IS THE FACT THAT WITH THE
ABNORMALLY COLD MARCH ACROSS THE AREA...THIS MADE THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR THE DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH PERIOD IN CHICAGO 22.0
DEGREES...WHICH IS THE COLDEST SUCH PERIOD ON RECORD FOR CHICAGO
DATING BACK TO 1872!

HERE IS A LIST OF THIS YEARS DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE RELATED TO THE OTHER COLDEST SUCH PERIODS ON RECORD
IN CHICAGO:

RANK                 AVERAGE                YEAR
                   DEC-MAR TEMP
--------------------------------------------------
1.                     22.0                2013-14
2.                     22.3                1903-04
3.                     22.5                1977-78
                       22.5                1892-93
5.                     22.7                1978-79

Exactly the same argument as the current summer....no records but continued warmth.....except it was no records but consistent cold.

Thanks Anger for teeing up my argument so nicely! In one instance warming is proceeding way slower than advertised and in the other instance by your very example’s logic  we are experiencing cooling.

I notice you didn't answer my questions on why you reckon Chicago temperatures are representative of the worlds 2nd largest landmass, and you didn't clarify which landmass you were referring too?

"Hottest on record for June, July and August....sounds dispositive. But then we find that the record broke  the 1955 record by 0.3 F degrees. And over that period the jumped up weathermen assure us we had a one degree centigrade increase in global temps."

I underlined and bolded the important part of that paragraph. Chicago temperatures are not a substitute for global temperatures.

"I guess on the basis of a 0.3 F increase in the Summer record over 65 years there isn’t much of a global warming case. But if that impresses you  suck on this:"

No need to guess, you can actually go look up global temperature measurements.

"Exactly the same argument as the current summer....no records but continued warmth.....except it was no records but consistent cold.

Thanks Anger for teeing up my argument so nicely! In one instance warming is proceeding way slower than advertised and in the other instance by your very example’s logic  we are experiencing cooling."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-is-arctic-warming-linked-to-polar-vortext-other-extreme-weather

Now I'm going to explain this one last time to you as clearly as I can. Global temperatures are measured globally at many thousands of temperature monitoring stations all throughout the year, not just on on a single day or a single week or a period of three months, but all 365 days of the year. At the end of year the temperatures can then be averaged and compared to previous years average. These comparison have shown that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2005 and the hottest 5 years on record have been the last 5 years (2014-2019), and 2010 to 2019 was the hottest decade on record.

Throughout the world over the course of the measured year, various locations average temperature might be below or above the average global temperature, some only slightly others by a considerable margin, but those temperatures are meaningless on their own if you talking about global temperatures.

Well that interesting, Star. 

See, there are threats which will kill billions. And they get zero attention.

You have to ask yourself why it is that the most taxable and lucrative of threats is the one the media focuses on.

The answer is pretty clear.

"The polar vortex.....I thought you would google there. Classic. When it’s hot it’s global warming, when it’s cold it’s some inverse phenomenon caused by global warming. "

Responding incredulously is not a rebuttal.

"Can’t you see the bias.....academics and politicians in an alliance to gain power. There is no global thermometer that magically gives us temperatures. Nor is there a stable network of measurement. Changes are made all the time....by the people who have a vested interest in showing heat.

The change in temperature is so small and the measurement system is so manipulatable that even accepted increases are dubious."

I can see your bias. You don't like what experts in the field of climate change have concluded. Unable to accept the evidence because of either your political views or simply being unwilling to admit to being wrong, your also unable to refute the evidence so you attempt to discredit the experts by claiming so sort of conspiracy without providing any evidence of said conspiracy.

No global thermometer...seriously what?. Are you saying there isn't thousands of temperature monitoring stations around the world?

Changes are made when errors and biases are found. With thousands of temperature measurements taken each year over the decades its hardly surprising that mistakes and errors are made, humans are not infallible. But when say 99.8% of the measurements show temperatures increasing you don't just say 0.2% of measurements showing temperature increases invalidates the 98.8% and 0.2% is right. Its far more likely that the 0.2% are errors than the 99.8% is right.

"Well that interesting, Star. 

See, there are threats which will kill billions. And they get zero attention.

You have to ask yourself why it is that the most taxable and lucrative of threats is the one the media focuses on.

The answer is pretty clear."

The reason they get zero attention or very little attention is they are potential threats with a very low percentage chane of them occurring in the immediate future, so of them may not occur while man still lives on planet earth, others won't occur for  thousands of years. Some we may not be able to do anything about anyway.

Global warming is confirmed to be already occurring, is already having an effect and will have an increasing effect in the short term (this century). The others are potential threats with a very low probability of occurring in the same time frame.

Star, 

You keep making it appear as though global warming is the most pressing threat. 

It is a threat but not an existential one for humanity. Not even in a worst case scenario does it pose a threat which would be unmanageable. 

Perhaps it's better to ask this;

Do you prefer tight restrictions on fossil fuel use, concrete production and livestock farming that would cause a global economic downturn, or...

Continuing to use fossil fuels etc and transitioning into greener products once they can replace fossil fuels without causing bumps in the global economic road?

Note; Google what percentage of the world's nations are 3rd world. 24% of the world's population live on less than $3.20 per day right now. 

Trying to move away from oil is not just about driving electric cars. Even if they weren't being charged by coal powered plants. Everything is oil. Moving away from it, with the earth's population what it is now, will require a technological transition that is just not supported by the available technology.

Moving away from oil irresponsibly will result in people being much worse off AND a slower to arrive, less efficient and less likely to succeed strategy for the human future.

It's not about ignoring global warming, man-made  or natural, but rather about managing it while not allowing idiotic politics and self serving entities to scare populations into accepting legislation that will see everybody worse off.

What are the key elements?

• To keep global temperatures "well below" 2.0C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C

• To limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100
• To review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge

• For rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy.

The age of oil has seen the greatest advancement in the population....the best measure of man’s well being. Tremendous ingenuity is built into the process of “cracking oil’ and the internal combustion engine.

As for moving away from oil....this is what’s in the Green New Deal:

What’s in the Green New Deal? 

The main goal of the plan is to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero and meet 100% of power demand in the country through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources by 2030.

................

Sound like these people think getting rid of oil is a straw man?