15 Nov 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidWOW what a massive straw man you are saying here!
I agree. Neanderthals lived during the Ice Age. That is a much more challenging environment to adapt to than GW and people are trying to get others to panic about it. As if we cannot adapt to a changing climate better than a Neanderthal. So absurd.
Some people just have this need to think the end of the world is coming. Remember how Y2K was supposed to make everything ...[text shortened]... valued. Even democrats are buying it. Go figure. It is as if they don't believe their own rhetoric.
NOBODY here is saying/implying we cannot adapt to climate change.
We all say we CAN adapt to climate change, including harmful climate change, just like we can adapt to almost any other harmful change; That doesn't mean harm will not still be done in the process; because harm WILL happen in the process. There will still be some populations harmed by greater floods, hurricanes etc. but humanity as a whole will adapt and nobody here is saying humanity as a whole cannot adapt, because that's stupid; Got that now?
Oh, and by the way, the latest scientific evidence suggests Neanderthals did NOT adapt to the last climate they experienced but rather actually become EXTINCT at least partly as a result of climate change:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-we-didn-t-kill-the-neanderthals-climate-change-did-new-stud-1.6414271
"....
The researchers reconstructed the climate of prehistoric central Europe by analyzing stalagmites from two caves in Romania. They discovered that the region went through two periods of extremely cold temperatures, even by Ice Age standards, around the time when Neanderthal populations dwindle and then disappear from the fossil record in what used to be the heartland of their territory.
..."
I still have little doubt that we humans were at least partly responsible but the fact remains the evidence suggests climate change was also at least partly responsible for causing their extinction and at most we merely helped to make it even less likely they wouldn't go extinct.
15 Nov 19
@humy saidI proved your hurricane myth wrong. You will not let facts confuse you.
WOW what a massive straw man you are saying here!
NOBODY here is saying/implying we cannot adapt to climate change.
We all say we CAN adapt to climate change, including harmful climate change, just like we can adapt to almost any other harmful change; That doesn't mean harm will not still be done in the process; because harm WILL happen in the process. There will still be some ...[text shortened]... their extinction and at most we merely helped to make it even less likely they wouldn't go extinct.
Show me a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal that concludes hurricanes are getting worse. The science says they are less frequent now in a warmer climate and no modern hurricane comes close to the death count of the Great Hurricane of 1780.
You are shamelessly spreading myths.
15 Nov 19
8 edits
@metal-brain saidyou haven't proved anything.
I proved your hurricane myth wrong.
And now you desperately try and change the subject of my post moronically hoping nobody would notice and we all know why.
But, now changing the subject back to hurricanes;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/are-hurricanes-getting-stronger-and-is-the-climate-crisis-to-blame
"...While the overall number of hurricanes has remained roughly the same in recent decades, there is evidence they are intensifying more quickly, resulting in a greater number of the most severe category four and five storms.
The proportion of tropical storms that rapidly strengthen into powerful hurricanes has tripled over the past 30 years, according to recent research.
there is growing evidence that the warming of the atmosphere and upper ocean, due to human activity such as burning fossil fuels, is making conditions ripe for fiercer, more destructive hurricanes.
“All of these things are linked to a warming atmosphere. If you warm things up, over time you will get stronger storms.”..."
And if you look at the data graph in that link, you see the data confirming this.
And, yes, this does all come from peer previewed science.
Yet more evidence;
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032020-100-theres-little-doubt-were-to-blame-for-hurricanes-getting-worse/
"The number of storms with wind speeds over 200 km/h or more has doubled since 1980 and those with wind speeds over 250 km/h and up has tripled"
And, again, yes, this does all come from peer previewed science.
Yet more evidence;
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse
-LOADS of relevant data and data graphs in the above link i.e. evidence shown in that link. Pretty conclusive to any non-moron.
Do you deny all this vast amount of data? Do you claim this data, that comes from many MULTIPLE independent sources, clearly apparently showing hurricanes are on average have recently been becoming stronger, is fraudulent i.e. just fabricated and thus all lies? If so, prove it. If you cannot prove your claim then you have no case.
16 Nov 19
@humy saidhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/
you haven't proved anything.
And now you desperately try and change the subject of my post moronically hoping nobody would notice and we all know why.
But, now changing the subject back to hurricanes;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/are-hurricanes-getting-stronger-and-is-the-climate-crisis-to-blame
"...While the overall number of hurricanes has remained rou ...[text shortened]... fabricated and thus all lies? If so, prove it. If you cannot prove your claim then you have no case.
16 Nov 19
5 edits
@metal-brain saidAnd there are many more peer reviewed studies, but with irrefutable evidence, that DO show a connection between climate change and hurricanes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/
I just showed you some.
Your point?
Why cheery-pick ONLY those studies that support your opinion while ignore the majority that contradict your opinion? -answer; you don't want truth.
Reminder:
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse
-Again, LOADS of relevant data and data graphs in the above link i.e. evidence shown in that link. Pretty conclusive to any non-moron.
Again; Do you deny all this vast amount of data that all very CLEARLY shows (proves, in fact) to any non-moron a connection between climate change and hurricanes?
And the idea that climate change cannot have ANY effect on hurricanes is completely moronic as hurricanes are fueled by certain whether effects (high humidity, high surface ocean temperature, etc) the frequencies of which logically MUST be in turn be influence by climate thus climate change! Thus climate change must have SOME effect on hurricanes!
16 Nov 19
1 edit
@humy said" Thus climate change must have SOME effect on hurricanes!"
And there are many more peer reviewed studies, but with irrefutable evidence, that DO show a connection between climate change and hurricanes.
I just showed you some.
Your point?
Why cheery-pick ONLY those studies that support your opinion while ignore the majority that contradict your opinion? -answer; you don't want truth.
Reminder:
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ ...[text shortened]... e influence by climate thus climate change! Thus climate change must have SOME effect on hurricanes!
Yes, they are less frequent in a warmer climate.
Show me one peer reviewed article. That Guardian article is simply false. The opposite is true.
"hurricanes are fueled by certain whether effects"
Yes, one of them is a colder upper atmosphere. That is why hurricanes are worse in a colder climate. I explained that to you many times and you keep denying that fact. Stop being willfully ignorant.
Alarmists are a doomsday cult.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html
16 Nov 19
5 edits
@metal-brain saidYour usual moronic staw man yet again;
" Thus climate change must have SOME effect on hurricanes!"
Yes, they are less frequent in a warmer climate.
As I have REPEATEDLY told you now, the most up-to-date evidence clearly shows that, perhaps surprisingly, their FREQUENCY, not to be confused with their strength, stays almost exactly the same with warming or cooling of climate and its currently unknown whether warmer climate means just slightly more frequency of hurricanes or just slightly less frequency of hurricanes BUT what isn't unknown is that the data clearly shows the average STRENGTH of the hurricanes becomes greater in warmer climate and that means they tend to do measurably more damage. In other words, its the higher frequency of specifically the higher CATEGORY of hurricane we should be concerned about.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/are-hurricanes-getting-stronger-and-is-the-climate-crisis-to-blame
"...While the overall number of hurricanes has remained roughly the same in recent decades, there is evidence they are intensifying more quickly, resulting in a greater number of the most severe category four and five storms.
The proportion of tropical storms that rapidly strengthen into powerful hurricanes has tripled over the past 30 years, according to recent research. ..."
I have already repeatedly shown you the data that clearly shows this to be true to any non-moron and which proves you wrong. Do you deny the data that proves this? How do you explain away this data? Here is just some of that data yet again;
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse
-Yet Again, LOADS of relevant data and data graphs in the above link i.e. evidence shown in that link. Pretty conclusive to any non-moron.
16 Nov 19
@humy saidYour guardian link is false gossip. You cannot find a single peer reviewed article to back up you claim. I provided you with one that backs up my claim.
Your usual moronic staw man yet again;
As I have REPEATEDLY told you now, the most up-to-date evidence clearly shows that, perhaps surprisingly, their FREQUENCY, not to be confused with their strength, stays almost exactly the same with warming or cooling of climate and its currently unknown whether warmer climate means just slightly more frequency of hurricanes or just slight ...[text shortened]... data graphs in the above link i.e. evidence shown in that link. Pretty conclusive to any non-moron.
The data from that link is wrong. It was fabricated. That is why you cannot find a peer reviewed article and you keep relying on a BS article from two authors I have never heard of. They are liars and that is all your confirmation bias can come up with, lies.
Try science instead of gossip for once.
16 Nov 19
@humy said"And, again, yes, this does all come from peer previewed science."
you haven't proved anything.
And now you desperately try and change the subject of my post moronically hoping nobody would notice and we all know why.
But, now changing the subject back to hurricanes;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/are-hurricanes-getting-stronger-and-is-the-climate-crisis-to-blame
"...While the overall number of hurricanes has remained rou ...[text shortened]... fabricated and thus all lies? If so, prove it. If you cannot prove your claim then you have no case.
You are a liar. Neither of those two links reference a peer reviewed article. Gossip is not science.
@metal-brain saidSo you DO deny the data that proves you wrong! Got it.
Gossip is not science.
And, obviously, the data collected has been examined by many people and the science has been peer previewed even if the words "peer previewed", or alternative words of same meaning, aren't specifically mentioned in those links. Most of the links you show also don't mention the words "peer previewed".
16 Nov 19
@humy said" the data collected has been examined by many people and the science has been peer previewed"
So you DO deny the data that proves you wrong! Got it.
And, obviously, the data collected has been examined by many people and the science has been peer previewed even if the words "peer previewed", or alternative words of same meaning, aren't specifically mentioned in those links. Most of the links you show also don't mention the words "peer previewed".
What peer reviewed article did it come from? Show me the article or stop lying.
16 Nov 19
@Metal-Brain
In other words, in your intellectual laziness you want everyone else to do your research for you, that way you can blindly dis it without even reading the works.
16 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidThis link has 30 peer reviewed articles listed. You have not posted even one to back up your claim.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, in your intellectual laziness you want everyone else to do your research for you, that way you can blindly dis it without even reading the works.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/
You are lazy. I did my research and you are too lazy to do any.
16 Nov 19
2 edits
@sonhouse saidI couldn't put that better myself.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, in your intellectual laziness you want everyone else to do your research for you, that way you can blindly dis it without even reading the works.
And its obvious to any non-moron that the data in many of those links contradicts his many idiotic assertions and is valid regardless of whether the words "peer review" are mentioned in the links with the data.
And nearly all if not all the scientific data presented in all these links has obviously been peer reviewed because the science links are PUBLIC and thus would inevitably be examined by many scientists that view the links. If that data was all lies i.e. fake then MANY would notice and loudly speak out publicly against the links. He would need an insane conspiracy theory to explain why apparently that hasn't happened. But I guess he doesn't even bother to look at the data that contradicts his assertions and instead chooses to cherry pick just those links he thinks support his assertions but often not even bothering to read those ones as shown by the fact many of the links he shows to support is assertions actually don't or, worse, actually contradict his assertions! He scored an own goal that way several times now. How can anyone take him seriously when he doesn't even bother to read the links?