Climate change models predict remarkably accurate results
Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: The Guardian
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists’ modelling of climate change shows.
The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.
The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.
The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/
Once again, the IPCC has proven to be largely correct in their findings & projections, as usual. Unfortunately, though, there's likely plenty of climate contrarians crying foul, as usual. And it's not just the deniers, either, by the way. We have doomer contrarians right here on this very website who keep promoting their own types of unsubstantiatable claims, which sometimes has as much twisting, misinterpreting, lack of understanding, willful ignorance, laziness, and/or even outright bullshitting put into it as their opposite numbers from people such as Monckton, Christy, et al., an example of which can be seen here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112739583
(Edit: Thanks for all the recs, ladies and gentlemen. Unfortunately, it seems that a certain few of our resident contrarians have dedicated their time to spamming this thread. They just can't stand being wrong.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NMDemDist2
(49,314 posts)the article you linked is fine but you might want to remove the call out of another DUer from your post. No problem linking this as a response to his post though.....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It's why I didn't name the DUer in question.....although I can see what you're saying, too.
(P.S. I'd love to have done that, but I got kicked off the forum in question, despite not having broken any of the rules. If you'd like to ask what happened, I'd be happy to get back to you, but I've been a bit busy lately so it might take me a while to get back to you.)
daleo
(21,317 posts)No surprise to those of us who know how science actually works. It's mainly oil money that says otherwise, that and religious crackpots.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I think the best news out there is that even with all the doomers' bungling and deniers' willful ignorance and obstructionism, that people are STILL waking up to climate change and wanting things done. Really, the fact is, our problem isn't, "Can we mitigate climate change?", but rather, "When does the tipping point get reached? When will we finally take serious hardcore action?".
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you use it so much here, that if you were paid by the use, you'd be a wealthy person.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And that's clouds. We've found that clouds are a positive feedback (ie, they will not reduce warming, but will contribute to it by producing drier climates and moving away from the equator).
That feedback will not be reflected in the temperature records for years. At which point IPCCs temperature predictions will be found to be inaccurate. (Though by then maybe the IPCC will put it into their models, so they can still say they're accurate on temperature, but certainly AR4 and below, and possibly AR5 will get it wrong.)
This doesn't even consider clathrate release or ocean heat absorption peaking. Both of those are still not really quantified, especially since the "missing heat" has now been determined to have sunk into the ocean.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The IPCC may perhaps be an imperfect organization, but they are still one of the best, and nearly every prediction they've made, outside of perhaps their earlier guesses where Arctic ice melt, and possibly sea level rise are concerned, has been within the range of their models, particularly those during the past decade or so. And I feel it's important to be consistent and be critical of BOTH extremes when necessary.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Thanks for helping do that with your post.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Unfortunately, it's kind of a tough job sometimes, especially when you have to deal with LOTS of misinformation, scaremongering, and even downright B.S.....
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The article you link to was published today. You could hardly criticize anyone for opinions based on information that wasn't previously available.
I'm not certain I follow what you're saying. By "doomer contrarians," are you talking about those who believe avoiding or mitigating Global Warming is a lost cause, and we should learn to adjust to the changes? That seems to be who you're criticizing.
What limits people in understanding comes down to one thing: reading speed. It's hard to get informed about Global Warming, or anything, when you can't take in the information. If it takes a person 3 months to read a 500 page novel, and they're really trying to go quicker, then it doesn't matter how many articles and references you throw at them. Meanwhile, a reading rate like that is very discouraging. From there, they do the best with the information their minds can get to. But they also have to take shortcuts and, to some degree, fake it, use inductive logic and guess.
Really in the Internet Age, the slowest thing in the process is the human mind. People must learn to read fast.
To get back on topic, what is wrong with this source? He's a scientist, but when Alder Stone talks about hope, that's not a scientific principle. He's speaking outside his expertise. This is important, because after he's committed all that time to earning his four degrees, it means he's actually put in less time learning things outside his specialties than the average person his age.
There's still a good chance that he's right. And I guess if optimism is your motivator, that's intolerable. However, saying it's not hopeful or even hopeless is far different than saying there's no point in trying. Not when the survival of the whole human species is at stake, not to mention the survival of other life.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)This is very important. Everyone focusses on CO2, but CO2 is only one greenhouse gas, even if it's the most important. The thing people have to understand is that up until 1990 far more powerful greenhouse gasses were being pumped into the atmosphere, and that is no longer happening as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the treaty that banned the use of CFCs as refrigerants.
See this link: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
This is the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. If you scroll down to the table that shows its growth each year, you'll notice a distinct dropoff after 1990. The last year this index went up by 2% or more was 1998.
So yes there's a lot to be concerned about, but concern doesn't mean doom. Things are bad, but they aren't hopeless.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)To make a very long story very short, the "doomers" also include the "we must destroy the economy" types as well as those who insist that civilization's collapse is written in stone or that human extinction, by AGW alone, is at least possible, if not inevitable(even though neither of these opinions are based in fact).
As for Alder Stone, I'll give him credit for his "we cannot afford fear, despair and denial" comment, and to be fair & honest, he seems to be operating largely out of a genuine lack of actual understanding of climate science, and nothing malicious(contrast this with deniers like "Lord" Monckton and Tony Watts, who practically LIVE on disinfo.): however, it should be pointed out that Dr. Stone is still not a climate scientist, and this is a field which does require lots of dedication.....so, yeah.
Even so, it does bother me that the "all bad news, all the time" crowd seems to so completely latch onto the most pessimistic writings without a shred of actual critical thinking between any of them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)anyone looking at your OP and other posts sees the pattern.
you can't get away with posting climate change denial --so you don't, anymore, you post saying that you believe in climate change but the MAIN point of your posts is ALWAYS that these people or those people are exaggerating and are "doomers" in fact, your use of the term "doomer" is amazingly consistent.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)you can't get away with posting climate change denial --so you don't, anymore,
Here's the thing: I never actually did any such thing in the first place. And the funny thing is, you never once actually provided any actual, solid proof to back up your claims, every time you were asked to do so.
If you want to keep going with your rather asinine ramblings, do it over the DU Mail system.
NickB79
(20,357 posts)The IPCC projections were accurate over the past 30 years when climate change was just starting to ramp up, largely because it didn't HAVE to take many large, difficult-to-model, positive feedback mechanisms into account. They simply didn't exist at the time because we were still so early in the warming process. Today, those positive feedback mechanisms are accelerating much faster than the IPCC thought possible. The snowball rolling down a hill doesn't stay at a static speed; it accelerates over time.
Take Arctic sea ice for example. The IPCC projections stated that we wouldn't see the lows we're currently seeing for another 40 years. We'll likely be ice-free in the Arctic by the end of this decade, something that blows the models out of the water. The same goes for methane release, permafrost greening and permafrost thawing. The divergence up there from the predictions is really mind-blowing.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's just saying the IPCC got the temperature right, which isn't particularly surprising since this is literally college level thermodynamics. You literally get to make a model that is super accurate in one of those classes.
You can view the lecture series here: http://bit.ly/13A8jqV
You can see how simple the model is just by watching this 45 minute lecture:
NickB79
(20,357 posts)When it comes to effects on the planet's ecosystems. We've grossly underestimated what the warming would do. I guess that's what I was trying to point out with the Arctic sea ice data.
If the climate only warmed 4C instead of 8C by 2100, but each degree does twice as much harm as we originally expected it too, we're still fully and truly fucked.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Outside of what was going on with the Arctic(which truly was unexpected, although there may also be other things going on that nobody is taking into account.), and, possibly, with sea level rise.....our estimations of what the warming would do, though it has fallen on the more pessimistic side of the margins in some cases, has still fallen within the range of what was predicted through various scenarios, regardless of what some contrarians want us to think.
NickB79
(20,357 posts)Like missing the loss of an entire polar ice cap by 50 years that spans millions of square kilometers is a small oopsie? Really? 
The collapse of the Arctic ice cap this early in the game and the subsequent thawing of the permafrost will have global consequences that the IPCC hasn't even addressed yet. That alone throws all their other future predictions into question.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)That alone throws all their other future predictions into question.
O rly? Please proceed, Governor.
NickB79
(20,357 posts)The way those rising temps affect the ecosystems is what the IPCC completely missed, as is clearly in evidence in the Arctic today.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm sorry, but this, too, is simply untrue. Even in the case of the Arctic, the general predictions were still relatively accurate, outside the rate melting of the Arctic ice caps.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)That's what we're saying, yes, they got temperature right, but they did not get the sea ice right, and didn't even address clathrates at all. Now what we're seeing is that their estimations were far off.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The "Clathrate Gun" theory is by no means universally accepted by climate scientists. Here's just ONE example:
www.methanenet.org/news/clathrate-gun-shot-down
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I simply said AR4 and indeed AR5 do not consider it, because the data is too little and the models need data to be based upon.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)In every scenario I can personally think of the outcome is negative, cloud feedbacks, drought possiblities, rainforest, sea level acidification, sea level rise, ocean heat content, arctic, ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica).
I really cannot think of one.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Here's just one pair of examples:
http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918
http://science.time.com/2011/11/24/new-study-suggests-climate-change-may-be-slightly-less-severe-than-feared/
I really could spend hours and hours looking for more evidence that some things really aren't quite as bad as some of our local ACC pessimists would be inclined to believe, but I'll just stick with that for now. Chances are, though, if you're willing to open your mind a little, I might find some more stuff when I have the time.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Not feedbacks.
Chances are you won't be able to find anything about feedbacks.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Just because the synopses of both articles don't touch on the technical stuff, such as feedbacks, doesn't mean the research mentioned, didn't account for such.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Today, those positive feedback mechanisms are accelerating much faster than the IPCC thought possible.
Not really, outside of Arctic ice melt.
We'll likely be ice-free in the Arctic by the end of this decade, something that blows the models out of the water.
Maybe, but maybe not.
The same goes for methane release, permafrost greening and permafrost thawing. The divergence up there from the predictions is really mind-blowing.
Umm....not quite.
NickB79
(20,357 posts)The loss of the Arctic is no small mistake. It. Is. Massive. It's like a doctor saying he was largely right in treating the patient for lung cancer, while missing the gaping gunshot wound to the side of the head.
And if you don't think we'll be ice-free in the Arctic by the end of this decade, you haven't been paying attention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112739223
That's 51 days ahead of the worst ice season on record.
As for the change in permafrost: http://io9.com/the-greening-of-the-arctic-453336239
And indeed, we’re talking about a considerably large area.
"It's like Winnipeg, Manitoba, moving to Minneapolis-Saint Paul in only 30 years," said co-author Compton Tucker through a NASA statement. Vegetation now grows in areas that were ecologically off limits only a few decades ago — a region that covers a jaw-dropping 3.5 million square miles (9 million square kilometers). For perspective, that’s an area equal to the continental United States.
But again, just a small oopsie, right?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But now I understand that barring some truly bizarre series of coincidences(or something else, perhaps.....), it isn't at all likely before around 2020, due to trends(and physics, unless there's something truly major that we don't understand yet in this regard)
That's 51 days ahead of the worst ice season on record.
Even though ice volume has gone back to 2011 levels according to even PIOMAS:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017c3798fd47970b-pi
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's clear that the arctic has a minimum, at this point, volume that it builds because, well, it's in complete darkness for several months. Since it's a three year trend that is likely the minimum right there.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Read my post again, please. 
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)This implies that it recovered 2012 losses. The key is that both 2012 and 2011 were bad years. So it has only recovered somewhat. Your language implies an entire year of melting was reversed, which is incorrect.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Forgive me if the language I used is a tad faulty, but I never DID imply that melting was actually reversed, so I don't know how you came to THAT conclusion(seriously, pal, WTF?).
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Your statement that "it isn't at all likely before around 2020, due to trends" and "Even though ice volume has gone back to 2011 levels according to even PIOMAS" are simply unsupported. It is likely to happen before then.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And as for the former, here's a graph that backs that up:
Of course, it can be admitted that this isn't for 100% certain, that much is true, but unless there is something truly major that we're still missing, we can probably expect a repeat of 2008-09-10 at this point.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept. The data is all right there for you to see, and yet, you continue to insist that I'm somehow completely wrong.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's a nice attempt at deflection but your original implication was completely false.
Fortunately for rationalists and not minimalists, the sea ice will show its demise in the next 3-4 years at most.
Unfortunately for the global climate, however.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Josh, the reason I have stated that the ice may not necessarily melt out in 4 years is because, contrary to yourself, I have taken an actual rational approach to this issue; I never once said, by the way, that the 2016 scenario couldn't happen, but merely that it wasn't as likely as some others may believe(I was in this camp myself once, btw), having observed the trends thus far.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Then you conflated sea ice volume with sea ice area. There has been no recovery past 2011.
A tactic often used by deniers, which you denounced in your OP, but did yourself.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I clearly differentiated between the two; I dealt with the ice volume first, and then I backed up my other statement, that is, in where I informed you that I didn't think that we would see our first ice-free day until 2020, with a NORSEX ice area graph. Not once, in this instance, did I conflate the two, and you darn well know that, I think.
Really, your attempts to stick the "denier" label on me simply because I disagree with your worldview, is getting to be really tiresome.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And then you used an ice area graph to help push that narrative.
When neither is true.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I used the NORSEX graph to back up my theory regarding future trends in area and when the first ice free day will occur, not volume recovery. I've made this perfectly clear and yet you continue to dishonestly insist that I confused the two in this conversation, which is clearly not true.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)When global warming reaches 2 degrees they might start to be convinced. Or not.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)IPCC has been rather close on temperature, but that's a 2nd year college thermodynamics course. Temperature isn't the issue, it's the effects. We can live, as physical beings, with a small temperature rise, because we're adaptable to many varied climates. The ecosystem and our agricultural and socioeconomic systems will have a harder time.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Your words. No, the IPCC was correct on temperature, for the most part.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, it may be true that the Arctic ice melt predictions were notably off, for whatever reason, but it does NOT, however, change the fact that most of their other predictions have fallen within the range of the estimates(even if not always real close to the average), or at least rather close to it, particularly with the latest models.
You can deny this fact all you want, but the facts are on my side at this point.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)So please spare me this nonsense. IPCC has not been correct on environmental feedbacks.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Please, spare me the semantics. Even with those exceptions of Arctic ice melt and accompanying sea level rise, it still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC did a good job pinpointing the good majority of effects of climate change. I'm sorry that you can't seem to come to terms with the truth, especially because the 20 or so people who recced this thread seem to understand differently.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)IPCC is not at all good at considering what the effects of climate change will be to various earth systems. We're entering into the third year of record drought. Where does IPCC predict that?
The people who recced the thread may or may not be supporting the OP's rhetoric minimizing the effects of climate change, and calling out other DUers, they may simply be reccing the fact that IPCC was accurate on temperature.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)You may be in the third year of a drought, but that is not a worldwide phenomenon.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And that's what he doesn't seem to get. But to each his own, I guess.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Basically the breadbaskets of the worlds populations.
(Note: China has recently got a reprieve so the map doesn't reflect it, but they were in a bad way last year.)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you'd like to try to prove us wrong, then I invite you to do so, but unless you CAN prove that all of these droughts are globally connected, instead of just regional anomalies, then I'd suggest you move on.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Not "one another."
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm sorry, but that's just a total falsehood and you know it. Show me on the thread where I've done this "minimization" you speak of......and only actual examples, please.....if you can even find any......which I doubt.
(And frankly, I find you be a hypocrite when you whine about me "calling somebody out", when you do this nearly every time I make a statement you don't like, especially if it's a particularly truthful one....hell, you've done this right here! So don't go looking for a stick in my eye when you've got one sticking outta your own.)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I'm merely correcting your falsehoods.
Your OP accuses people who have a cynical view of climate change of "twisting, misinterpreting, lack of understanding, willful ignorance, laziness, and/or even outright bullshitting."
Yet all they do is look at the data and see that it is not a rosy picture as you pretend.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you truly believe that I've ever painted a "rosy picture" of climate change.....then I've got a real nice beachfront property in Nunavut to sell you.....
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)My facts do not fit your notions, and therefore, I consider it a "rosy picture." Since the picture I have, with the facts, is decidedly not rosy, and you insist that I am wrong.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Regardless of what you continue to insist, I'm the one that has the facts here. And right now, based on the information that I have, that the trend that was observed from 2008-09-10 seems that it very well could repeat itself again over the next few years, and that an ice-free event by 2016 didn't seem to be as likely as I first thought.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And your "prediction" will be falsified in a very short time frame.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)As I've implied before, neither of the two scenarios I've listed, whether it happens as soon as 2016, or by around 2020, is set in stone, and either one could potentially happen(including, perhaps, bizarre circumstance.....climate change isn't exactly an orderly process, really). But, I can say that your arrogance does bother me a little bit; what do you have to lose if you end up being wrong?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I doubt by then you'll accept that climate change is going to have catastrophic effects.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I've never once said that climate change couldn't become catastrophic(this is kinda complicated because the exact specifics of what constitutes such, do vary from person to person), by the way. I just don't believe that it's inevitably so, contrary to the beliefs(or protest) of some.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)PolitFreak
(236 posts)I don't think most of them will "get it" until their children start bursting into flames for no apparent reason whatsover. Heck, even then, they'll probably think it's Gawwwwwwwd's Punishment for something or other.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I do doubt that ANY simulation offers reliable prediction of future events (Chaos theory says so ...) and the headline ("Climate change models predict remarkably accurate results" is at best misleading. The fact is there are many climate models, and they have no necessary connection whatsoever to the real world or what happens in it.
I do realize that the purpose of the article is to convince the Rubes that climate change is real and must be dealt with, and I'm OK with that, but as science it does not stand up.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I do doubt that ANY simulation offers reliable prediction of future events (Chaos theory says so ...)
Well, I suppose this may be true for individual events.....after all, very strange coincidences can, and do happen; first of all, how about the fact that a single town in Kansas was struck by a tornado, 3 years in a row, on the same calendar day? Or the back to back 2011 & 2012 heat waves?
Trends, however, are a different case, and I don't see any plausible evidence suggesting that this will change all that much in future years, at this juncture.
The fact is there are many climate models, and they have no necessary connection whatsoever to the real world or what happens in it.
That is probably true for some; you have people like David Wasdell claiming a 7.8*C total sensitivity per doubling of Co2, or Guy McPherson saying we'll be hitting 16*C by 2100(yeah, you read that right, btw), and on the other extreme, you've got denier failures and bullshit artists like Richard Lindzen, who once made a prediction of a half-degree DROP within a period of just 2 years, or Lord Monckton, with all of his shenanigans, etc.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)They will all fail, and generally it won't take long. Even if we knew enough, and we most definitely do not, they would still fail, it would just take a bit longer.
That is not to say they are not useful, to study the problem, but they ought not be taken as prediction. If you want to know what is coming next, you have to watch. Sims can give you some idea what to watch for and some idea what you might try to do about it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If anything at all, more and more evidence is beginning to come out that at least some things may not quite be as catastrophically bad as certain people would have us think, though on the other hand, there's also more & more evidence telling us that we really should step up our acting on reducing fossil fuel consumption.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I used to do sims. They are mathematical models, basically. They can be very useful abstractions, but they should not be mistaken for experiments in the real world. Garbage in, garbage out. Good stuff in, good stuff out.
And there is no dependable shortcut for seeing the future, if you want to know, you need to live until then.
And that is without even considering "Black Swans" and the like, or Goedel's Theorem and the various things it is equivalent to, both of which tell you that in fact reality is not compelled by our mathematical abstractions.
I like the precautionary principle: don't fuck around with stuff you don't understand. You never get in more trouble then when you think you know exactly what you are doing.
And climate change, well, I think it is already much too late in one sense, but there is no reason to think we can't do something about it, in another.
But the world is a beautiful place, it's a shame to sell if off for the likes of our Plutocracy, who after all are not nice people.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I think the larger observation you make is worth spelling out: the science of climate change has been politicized, and once it's in the realm of politics, the truth and validity of the arguments can no longer be rationally discussed, because irrational arguments are given the same weight as those backed by sound science.
People on both sides are free to--and even encouraged to--exaggerate their claims in order to be more persuasive, which only serves to confuse the uninformed and mislead many into thinking there are two valid sides to this debate, instead of only hypotheses and predictions which are confirmed (or not) by observation.
It shouldn't be a debate. Only the people who profit from delay--and those they dupe into supporting them--wish it to be a debate. It's probably too late to change what is going to happen, but it's not too late to hunt down and shear the profits away from those who have perpetuated this debate for a decade past the point where science won the argument.
That can be used as leverage against the perpetrators for decades to come--if we last that long.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)As to the last comment, I think the Teabaggers and all the other rightist malcontents are getting ready for civil war against what they see as the "librul commie" menace.....which could ultimately break this country apart. It's not likely, but sadly not quite impossible, either.
And then what happens if, or perhaps when, China collapses? Not only would global economy be wrecked for some years to come, but the fall of East Asia's most powerful nation would pose a myriad of other issues, too: You thought people got scared about loose Russian nukes? With Chinese bombs in this scenario, it could be a lot worse.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I've spent the past few years doing Civil War battlefield tours on the side, and way more than once, as we walked a battlefield, I mused to myself that many of the good things America has done since then were pretty much a direct result of half a million of the most virulent rednecks being cut down and politically silenced after launching a war of their own choosing.
They got what they had coming to them, and were unceremoniously shoved out of the way afterwards. That, effectively, is what today's rednecks are crowing for, though they do not yet know it.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)these people have thousands of models,
some of them are bound to be close.
...................
btw, last year, I had afootball model
that predicted the Ravens.
sadly, my other 31 models
were not so good.