Sydney is flooded, again, as climate crisis becomes new normal for Australia's most populous state

[Scott]

You will treat others in a respectful manner or you will be suspended.  Further insulting posts will not be permitted.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

International cooperation ... putting your faith in govts ... and I thought you were intelligent at times.   There goes that thought.

 

So we'll just sit and wait for guidance from the folks, that basically are creating this mess.  International cooperation & govts ... you apparently haven't been paying attention.   As those people don't care, never did, never will.  

You might want to look closer to home when questions about perspicacity arise.

In fact, governments have been directly responsible for huge reductions in pollution thanks to laws and regulations. The rise of solar and wind power has also been greatly aided by said governments. If you like, you can ask me to provide evidence. There's plenty of it. But I don't think you really want to know.

[Atlantis]

On 7/20/2022 at 1:07 AM, ozimoron said:

The magnitude and rate of warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes at any other time over the last 24,000 years

 

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/

First of all thankyou @ozimoron for this post. It’s a good learning moment for two reasons. 
 

1. When linking to an article, don’t presume the other guy is going to spend less time and care to read it than you (if you’ve even actually read beyond the first few lines).

 

”“Paleoclimate records provide the only record we have of these past climates, but these records are imperfect and they have gaps in space and time.”

 

Shockingly, my very mild (almost commonsense) comment about the relative reliability of records going back millions of years, is supported by your very own link.

 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

First of all thankyou @ozimoron for this post. It’s a good learning moment for two reasons. 
 

1. When linking to an article, don’t presume the other guy is going to spend less time and care to read it than you (if you’ve even actually read beyond the first few lines).

 

”“Paleoclimate records provide the only record we have of these past climates, but these records are imperfect and they have gaps in space and time.”

 

Shockingly, my very mild (almost commonsense) comment about the relative reliability of records going back millions of years, is supported by your very own link.

I'm pleased that somebody is reading those links. If the facts sink in and even one person is educated by them it will have been worth it.

 

Are you suggesting that the data is so unreliable that scientists can't draw the conclusion they did from the data that there was never a universally warmer period than we are in now for 300 odd thousand years? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the goal to establish that fact one way or the other?

Edited July 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[Atlantis]

On 7/20/2022 at 1:07 AM, ozimoron said:

The magnitude and rate of warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes at any other time over the last 24,000 years

 

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/

 

2. A summary of a link done in good faith goes a long way. while one done in bad faith can easily backfire. In this instance, the actual article contains the following:

 

“Different methods exist for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets – temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate – to create a more complete picture of the past.”

 

“This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we’ve seen in that same time,” said senior author Jessica Tierney, an associate professor at the University of Arizona.”

 

“Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists’ best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn’t perfect.”

 

Is this research potentially a welcome addition to the scientific literature? Sure, and let’s see what their peers have to say in good time.

 

But is it as definitive as the claim made above? - shorn of all moderating language and context (‘suggests’, ‘reconstruction’ ‘computer simulation’ etc.). Clearly not.

 

The original point of disagreement related to the relative reliability paleoclimatologia records - not combining them with the latest computer  model - (as interesting as that may be.)

 

 

[Atlantis]

43 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'm pleased that somebody is reading those links. If the facts sink in and even one person is educated by them it will have been worth it.

Yes somebody is, and that somebody is finding another very different but nevertheless educational  use for the link: demonstrating how posters (in this instance yourself) apparently switch off all critical thinking when linking to a post in support of their own position. You’re being very helpful again with your self-assured “the facts” when I’d 90% of all posters on here will immediately recognize what kind of study is being described here.

 

Critical thinking shouldn’t end the moment you find an article that confirms to your biases; that is when it should begin. In this case, it’s not even that on-topic if you’d read it and the initial comments on page 1 of this thread.

[Atlantis]

51 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Are you suggesting that the data is so unreliable that scientists can't draw the conclusion they did from the data that there was never a universally warmer period than we are in now for 300 odd thousand years?

Not at all. Btw, I think you may be confusing two different threads unwittingly, as you’re likely active on both. Remember how we got here in the first place: the comment about proxy measures for temperatures from “millions” of years ago, and the other statement about the unprecedented (rate of) in temperatures.

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Yes somebody is, and that somebody is finding another very different but nevertheless educational  use for the link: demonstrating how posters (in this instance yourself) apparently switch off all critical thinking when linking to a post in support of their own position. You’re being very helpful again with your self-assured “the facts” when I’d 90% of all posters on here will immediately recognize what kind of study is being described here.

 

Critical thinking shouldn’t end the moment you find an article that confirms to your biases; that is when it should begin. In this case, it’s not even that on-topic if you’d read it and the initial comments on page 1 of this thread.

If 90% of people here would immediately recognise the study as being a scam then the same percentage of the general population would do as well with the predicted blow back. Absent, unless you think there is a grand world wide conspiracy to hide the truth from MSM.

 

The critical thinking mind must also ask why there isn't major push back. The critical thinking mind must ask itself where are all the credible studies debunking anthropomorphic climate change. Those that don't seem to cloak their inability to answer this question (ignorance) in self praise for having a critical mind capable of shutting hard questions out. The is a commonality between those who support theories that don't make the cut and those who accuse others of not having a critical mind.

 

Finally, academics manly support the notion of anthropomorphic climate change as being a crisis. Critical minds are very often associated with academia.

[placeholder]

23 hours ago, ozimoron said:

If 90% of people here would immediately recognise the study as being a scam then the same percentage of the general population would do as well with the predicted blow back. Absent, unless you think there is a grand world wide conspiracy to hide the truth from MSM.

 

The critical thinking mind must also ask why there isn't major push back. The critical thinking mind must ask itself where are all the credible studies debunking anthropomorphic climate change. Those that don't seem to cloak their inability to answer this question (ignorance) in self praise for having a critical mind capable of shutting hard questions out. The is a commonality between those who support theories that don't make the cut and those who accuse others of not having a critical mind.

 

Finally, academics manly support the notion of anthropomorphic climate change as being a crisis. Critical minds are very often associated with academia.

Forgot about all academics. It's climatologists, the experts, who are claiming it's a crisis. Just read the latest IPCC report.

[placeholder]

On 7/23/2022 at 2:54 AM, Atlantis said:

 

2. A summary of a link done in good faith goes a long way. while one done in bad faith can easily backfire. In this instance, the actual article contains the following:

 

“Different methods exist for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets – temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate – to create a more complete picture of the past.”

 

“This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we’ve seen in that same time,” said senior author Jessica Tierney, an associate professor at the University of Arizona.”

 

“Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists’ best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn’t perfect.”

 

Is this research potentially a welcome addition to the scientific literature? Sure, and let’s see what their peers have to say in good time.

 

But is it as definitive as the claim made above? - shorn of all moderating language and context (‘suggests’, ‘reconstruction’ ‘computer simulation’ etc.). Clearly not.

 

The original point of disagreement related to the relative reliability paleoclimatologia records - not combining them with the latest computer  model - (as interesting as that may be.)

 

 

Nice cherry-picking but... you left out what was actually newsworthy about this new research.

The point was that while either method is less reliable, putting them together provided a far more reliable result

“We found remarkable agreement between the output from our assimilation method and the values in independent paleoclimate records,” Hakim said. “This independent validation of our estimates for the past climate variability is an indication of how much the results can be trusted.”

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/

 

[Atlantis]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:14 PM, placeholder said:

Nice cherry-picking but... you left out what was actually newsworthy about this new research.

The point was that while either method is less reliable, putting them together provided a far more reliable result

“We found remarkable agreement between the output from our assimilation method and the values in independent paleoclimate records,” Hakim said. “This independent validation of our estimates for the past climate variability is an indication of how much the results can be trusted.”

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/

 

Almost, but once again, no cigar.

If only the actual question was “what is interesting / news-worthy about this article”, you might have a point!

…as opposed to whether it actually undermines the notion that paleo climate records are highly reliable by themselves.

 

D’oh!

 

[Atlantis]

On 7/23/2022 at 12:22 PM, ozimoron said:

If 90% of people here would immediately recognise the study as being a scam then the same percentage of the general population would do as well with the predicted blow back. Absent, unless you think there is a grand world wide conspiracy to hide the truth from MSM.

 

The critical thinking mind must also ask why there isn't major push back. The critical thinking mind must ask itself where are all the credible studies debunking anthropomorphic climate change. Those that don't seem to cloak their inability to answer this question (ignorance) in self praise for having a critical mind capable of shutting hard questions out. The is a commonality between those who support theories that don't make the cut and those who accuse others of not having a critical mind.

 

Finally, academics manly support the notion of anthropomorphic climate change as being a crisis. Critical minds are very often associated with academia.

Did you try and dress up a generic, word salad of “MSM, conspiracy etc”  to deflect from that fact that not only did you undermine your own assertion regarding paleoclimatic records with a poor choice of link, but also (amusingly) confused yourself with which climate thread you are messaging on.

 

Before you comment any more on a ‘critical thinking mind’ or attempt to attribute any other off-topic nonsense to me, try to read this actual thread and remember just what ii is you are wrong about this time. Thanks.

[placeholder]

xxx

1 hour ago, Atlantis said:

Almost, but once again, no cigar.

If only the actual question was “what is interesting / news-worthy about this article”, you might have a point!

…as opposed to whether it actually undermines the notion that paleo climate records are highly reliable by themselves.

 

D’oh!

 

I'd like to think that your use of "d'oh", is not worthy of you, but I'm not at all sure about that. The only question left to resolve is whether the shot was dumber than it was cheap or cheaper than it was dumb.  But keep trying, Homer.

Is this research potentially a welcome addition to the scientific literature? Sure, and let’s see what their peers have to say in good time.

But is it as definitive as the claim made above? - shorn of all moderating language and context (‘suggests’, ‘reconstruction’ ‘computer simulation’ etc.). Clearly not.

The research says that the use of the second method confirmed the accuracy of the first. Not that the first was inaccurate. So if anyone is using a word salad ("suggests", "reconstruction", "computer simulations) which you accused Ozimoron of doing, it's you.