Australian Politics Forum - 17 feet of snow in California

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #45 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:21am

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2022 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2022 at 8:24am:

Have you proven David wrong?

Well he did say "in a few years" when he said it in 2000. I guess his few years is not. Wink

I will let you decide what "a few years" is. Grin

So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #46 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:21am: So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago? But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 15650 Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #47 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:01pm lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am: But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW. ...."(don't) know"? whereas of course you DO know.....
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #48 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:10pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am:

But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW.

...."(don't) know"? whereas of course you DO know.....

oh dear thegreatdivide is back. like a pimple on the a*se.

So tell us what you know about precipitation. What are its forms?

So what do you want me to tell you about Climate. We know you you agree with the IPCC and AGW. Although strangely you then go on to describe yourself as an agnostic on AGW. A doubtful believer. Grin

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

I doubt the climate has differed from that.

I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #49 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am:

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:21am:

So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago?

But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW. Grin

So what is your point? That even when you are shooting fish in a barrel, you miss?

Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15650
Gender: male

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #50 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:10pm:

oh dear thegreatdivide is back. like a pimple on the a*se.

So tell us what you know about precipitation. What are its forms?

Like I said, you only prove you are incapable of thinking clearly. What I know about climate science is immaterial, whereas the IPCC AGW climate change consensus IS significant, leading to an agreed plan for global COP meetings to deal with this consensus.

Meanwhile you are the one claiming you KNOW the IPCC AGW climate-change consensus is wrong.

Quote:

So what do you want me to tell you about Climate. We know you you agree with the IPCC and AGW. Although strangely you then go on to describe yourself as an agnostic on AGW. A doubtful believer

See...you can't think clearly. I've already explained umpteen times I'm agnostic - have an open mind on AGW: my interest is in eliminating the filthy, poisonous fossil industry, whereas your interest is in supporting the filthy, poisonous fossil industry because you "KNOW" AGW science is wrong....but feel free to tell why you are really determined to defend the filthy fossil industry and its overpriced products... Certainly we could easily close more than 50% of the fossil industry down in under a decade, with present technology. The Pilbara and Snowy 2.0 are beckoning.

Quote:

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

I doubt the climate has differed from that.

I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. Wink

You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'.......

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #51 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

What I know about climate science is immaterial, whereas the IPCC AGW climate change consensus IS significant, leading to an agreed plan for global COP meetings to deal with this consensus.

Consensus is about politics not science. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Meanwhile you are the one claiming you KNOW the IPCC AGW climate-change consensus is wrong.

Actually no one knows. AGW is certainly not as bad as posited. Remember all those things underpinning the CONSENSUS? It could be largely beneficial, it could be somewhat bad or it could be catastrophic. They are all there - so just what is the consensus on AGW? Why do the IPCC use so many models if there is a consensus? Logically only one model can be right. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

I've already explained umpteen times I'm agnostic - have an open mind on AGW: my interest is in eliminating the filthy, poisonous fossil industry, whereas your interest is in supporting the filthy, poisonous fossil industry because you "KNOW" AGW science is wrong....but feel free to tell why you are really determined to defend the filthy fossil industry and its overpriced products..

And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. Roll Eyes

Where have I defended fossil fuels. They exist. They have given the whole world and increase in the ability to remain in one place. The ability to study after dark. The ability for hospitals etc to operate 24 hours. But you want them banned so that countries that don't have that wealth of product can advance. Neocolonialism at best.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Certainly we could easily close more than 50% of the fossil industry down in under a decade, with present technology.

Rubbish. Show me your timeline.

Nuclear is a good option. But there are too many nimbys.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'.......

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #52 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:10pm freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm: Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England? It is supposed to be Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby. Moderator Offline Australian Politics Posts: 121963 Melbourne Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #53 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:37pm .
Back to top	snow-storm_1_001.jpg (151 KB \| 14 ) IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #54 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:35pm

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm:

Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England?

It is supposed to be Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. Roll Eyes

Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? Why are you afraid to actually say it? Does it look too stupid, even for you, when you write it down?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #55 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:48pm freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:35pm: Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? No petal. Snow is a form of precipitation. Or do you disagree?
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15650
Gender: male

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #56 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:

Actually no one knows. AGW is certainly not as bad as posited. Remember all those things underpinning the CONSENSUS? It could be largely beneficial, it could be somewhat bad or it could be catastrophic. They are all there - so just what is the consensus on AGW? Why do the IPCC use so many models if there is a consensus? Logically only one model can be right. Roll Eyes

Ask the IPCC; but logic is not your strong suit, as the following proves.

Quote:

And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. Roll Eyes

See? You turn my dislike of the fossil industry into "paying lip service to agnosticism". Pathetic inability to think clearly.

Quote:

Where have I defended fossil fuels. They exist. They have given the whole world and increase in the ability to remain in one place. The ability to study after dark. The ability for hospitals etc to operate 24 hours. But you want them banned so that countries that don't have that wealth of product can advance. Neocolonialism at best.

Fossils are poisonous, environmentally disastrous (which is why heavily populated India and China want to get rid of them, in order to breathe clean air) and obsolete.

Quote:

Rubbish. Show me your timeline.

I'll let the engineers in the room laugh at you.

Quote:

Nuclear is a good option. But there are too many nimbys.

Not in China and India; but nuclear need only be small part of the energy mix (unless/until fusion is mastered).

Quote:

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled.

Oh dear, addressed above - hopefully for the last time: I'm agnostic...even if you keep claiming otherwise - a clear case study in ideology ruining your capacity for clear thinking.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53355 At my desk.	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #57 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 6:03pm lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:48pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:35pm: Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? No petal. Snow is a form of precipitation. Or do you disagree? What do you think this thread is about? Climate "skeptics" being afraid to say what they are saying?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: 17 feet of snow in California
Reply #58 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:21pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Ask the IPCC; but logic is not your strong suit, as the following proves.

Quote:
And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. Roll Eyes
See? You turn my dislike of the fossil industry into "paying lip service to agnosticism". Pathetic inability to think clearly.

poor petal. I can only go on what you post. And you are a good b arracker for AGW and the IPCC.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Fossils are poisonous, environmentally disastrous (which is why heavily populated India and China want to get rid of them, in order to breathe clean air) and obsolete.

Which is why China and India are building more coal plants. Much more power output than Solar or wind. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

I'll let the engineers in the room laugh at you.

Poor petal. Can't back up your own rubbish.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Not in China and India; but nuclear need only be small part of the energy mix (unless/until fusion is mastered).

That's why China and India are building nuclear. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Oh dear, addressed above - hopefully for the last time: I'm agnostic...even if you keep claiming otherwise - a clear case study in ideology ruining your capacity for clear thinking.

You are the one that asked whether the climate has changed from being unable to be modelled. So obviously you, as usual, don't know. A complete bupkiss. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Quote:
The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

I doubt the climate has differed from that.

I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. Wink

You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'...

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled.

So I ask again what about the climate has changed that it can now be modelled? Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21507 Gender:	Re: 17 feet of snow in California Reply #59 - Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:24pm freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 6:03pm: What do you think this thread is about? It is about 17 feet of snow in Canada. Did you forget that? Nothing in the OP about climate. And they say the records only go back to 1970.
Back to top	IP Logged