olofscience

I asked a simple question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Actually, since you posted that quote without comment, I'll assume that your answer was "yes you agree with the SRES model, and yes we should adopt renewables to aim for scenario A1B". Thank you for conceding you're wrong.

So do you now agree with the SRES computer model? And, do you now support renewables since it's a big part of scenario A1B you just posted about? Again note that what you posted was a prediction from a computer model, not actual historical data.

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica. You're just as bad as Zoe - she uses bad computer code to try to impress people, you use IPCC quotes you don't understand to try to hang on their coattails. Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

I just did. You really didn't know what it was saying

Anyway, to clarify for the other readers here, I can translate the blurb (brenthutch hasn't provided the exact reference). Terms: GCMs: Global Climate Models SMB: surface mass balance SRES: Special Report on Emissions Scenario A1B: scenario where the world continues to adopt renewables at a moderate pace A1FI: scenario where the world keeps using and doubles down on fossil fuels (the approach brenthutch is recommending) So in this computer MODEL (not measurements as brenthutch thinks), modelling global emissions under scenario A1B results in Antarctica accumulating ice due to increased snowfall from increased moisture in the air. However, this ice accumulation is almost entirely negated, but not quite, by increased ice discharge, so the net contribution is only about -0.8m in about 980 years (year 3000). But the other sources of sea level increase, such as thermal expansion of seawater, pretty much swamps out this almost-zero contribution (0.8 mm per year vs 3.0 mm per year), so overall sea levels will still rise. But again, this is a prediction from a MODEL that brenthutch doesn't believe in, but he just posted the blurb without any comment because really, he doesn't have a clue what it's saying. references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

Do you even understand the stuff you're quoting? I doubt you do. Stop pretending.

Your reputation here has been so busted that hanging it on the IPCC coattails won't do a thing to save it. In this post, we have: no sources, just appeal to authority of the IPCC (because his own reputation is busted) - IPCC sea level page is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/sea-level-rise/ a more detailed report from the IPCC is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/sea-level-rise/ cherry-picking, even if increased ice accumulation contributes -1.7mm/year, since 1993 sea levels have been rising for 3mm/year Summary: brenthutch is full of shit as usual, now he's desperate enough to cherry pick and misquote the IPCC to make his points. You know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC.

Even if it was, brenthutch probably won't mind eating just jellyfish for seafood and roaches for lunch as biodiversity doesn't seem to matter to him - the world is greening after all! </sarcasm>

If they posted here, I would. But they're not the ones posting ridiculous pseudoscientific crap here.

"climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!" we then proceed to show irrefutable evidence that it is changing "well it is happening, but the change is good for us! Look at the massive improvements we had in the past 100 years as if CO2 is entirely responsible for that!" ... "climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!" Rinse, recycle, repeat.

Ah, the "I didn't mean what I said" argument. You were clearly constructing a strawman argument which is why you said "threat to the planet", that's what's dishonest. If I'm rigorous and precise (you might call it pedantic) see how quickly you have to retreat?

No, asking the loaded question is dishonest. Saying you included something else in the statement does not erase the fact that you did say it.

First: the planet is not a living thing, it's a lump of rock weighing about 6000 quintillion tons (about 5.9722×10^24 kg). So right there and then you're already loading the question. Very, very dishonest. I don't know. Seriously, I have no idea. It's currently a subject of active research. (to be clear - ignoring the loaded side of the question) But what I'm very sure of, is that all your arguments have gigantic holes in them, and that you make dishonest arguments, you move the goalposts, and that you really have nothing new to offer. The fact that you have to keep building strawmen arguments to attack just shows how desperate you're getting. But the world's moving on. You might think you have a lot of company, but it's really just a few pseudoscientific crackpots like ZP whose lies are easily exposed.

And yet you'll attribute all their arguments to me. Nice try. That's why some of those superhero comics and movies are so unrealistic with their secret identities in an entry-level job. Anyone who's in a customer-facing job with superpowers is far more likely to turn into a supervillain than a superhero... At least Zoe was entertaining, this one, not so much

If the were so clearly wrong and 2021 would be cooler on average than 1998 you wouldn't have a problem making that prediction right? The reason why I ignore this is because you're trying to build a strawman again and attribute other arguments that I didn't make. If you bring in what AOC or what Al Gore or whatever random person said, go debate them, not me. You're clearly afraid enough to keep putting up all these strawmen and it's getting really boring.

Then why were you crowing about the February temperatures if it doesn't matter anyway? Your dodging is getting really obvious.

Predictable. When asked to make a simple prediction (2021 will be cooler than 1998 on average globally) you move the goalpost from temperature to climate-related deaths and A HUNDRED YEARS It almost seems like you don't have any confidence, strange huh?

Yeah thought as much. He was willing to make the "Tesla will be bankrupt soon" prediction though. He's probably afraid of being wrong again. It's a simple prediction - 2021 will be warmer, on average, than 1998. Then he could shut up for the rest of the year and we'll see in January who's right. I for one, wish I was wrong.

Will you be willing to bet 2021 is colder than 1998 on average then?

And how about if we average over the entire year? Let's come back to this in January and see how 2021 compares to 1998.

Nope, otherwise you'd be able to quote me. You can't. I didn't attack the messenger, that's not allowed here. I challenged some of her other statements on AGW, and hilarity ensued.

Yes really, you completely made up the lie that I didn't like the link you posted. Not sure why you think posting more links or the same link again is a valid argument against that.

Making things up again...

Do you mean that Zoe Phin crackpot that you brought here? Sorry to break it to you bud, she's no scientist.

So it was abusive enough to have to be edited out oh well thanks for the info!