The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

Discussion in 'Environment' started by well named, Nov 13, 2018.

  1. well named
    Offline

    well named poorly undertitled Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    368
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +274
    I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims about climate, for example on the role of greenhouse gases in the atmospheric radiation balance. I thought i would share the link.

    ACS Climate Science Toolkit - American Chemical Society
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,731
    Thanks Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +30,280
    Most sections (other than the narratives ARE well done and presented straight up.. Anyone claiming to argue these points should understand all those basics.

    But the disconnects lie in the HISTORY of claims for Global Warming and the magnitude of effects predicted. Almost ALL of these claims have been constantly revised down since the 1980s -- including the dire scary projections of temperatures in 2100 and the sea level state of affairs.

    The media (as usual) has done a biased and piss poor job of presenting the actual science. Preferring to use the TOP of very wide projections in order to hype the talking points.

    Some relevant facts have been completely omitted from the narratives given to the public. Such as the ability of ANY Global Temperature proxy study over the many past millenia to FIND the actual "short time variance" of temperature or CO2.. In short -- reading tree rings, or chemically analyzing mud bugs CAN NOT provide any useful information on the natural variation of climate over time scales shorter than 400 or 800 years. So in fact, no claims can be made that our tiny 0.6DegC temperature blip in YOUR lifetime is any kind of anomaly..
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    19,026
    Thanks Received:
    3,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +11,920
    That's Flac's "You can't prove CO2 and temperature didn't have sudden brief inexplicable wild variations, so they did!" logic.

    It's similar to "You can't prove fairy magic doesn't drive climate, so it does!" logic. That's why everyone laughs at it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,731
    Thanks Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +30,280
    Only to folks who believe in "guilty until proven innocent" or science needing to prove NEGATIVE assertions.,

    The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data. By means of inspecting the various resolutions of the data and resampling and filtering applied to the data. There's virtually no SHORT TERM data (less than 500 years) RETAINED in the data processing.

    No need to prove what Marcott and others have already admitted to... That's how the "science thingy" works.

    I'm not the one LYING about what the Proxy records tell us. That would be Mann, and the rest of the zealots. And I've constantly said -- the only thing they tell us is a running LONG TIME mean..

    So I'm not hyping anything. That would statements like "The current warming rate FAR EXCEEDS anything seen in the last XXXXXXX years of the Earth's temperature record..

    THERE ARE NO "RATES" in ANY of the Global Proxy temperature studies that even come CLOSE to a 100 or 200 period.. Because they CAN NOT EXIST with that data processing paradigms. So --- all that hysteria is the Bad Science. Not me...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    19,026
    Thanks Received:
    3,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +11,920
    What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

    Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

    If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

    After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

    That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,731
    Thanks Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +30,280
    We're not talking "short" time periods on a climate time line. 400 years is 5 times longer than our little temperature blip since the last solar minimum.

    40 and 50 year events DO SHOW on high quality, high resolution LOCAL paleo-proxy studies. And they suggest that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods had similar rates and magnitudes of temperature variance to our CURRENT experience.

    But the point is --- NONE of that was ever available on the GLOBAL "meta-studies" that produced all those hockey sticks. It was science maliciously and badly hyped for public consumption...
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,731
    Thanks Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +30,280
    I have no need for a theory. Or a moral imperative to replace ANY HYPOTHESIS in science that gets refuted. The only salient action here is to correct the FRAUDULENT misrepresentations that a handful of activists made for the many global "hockey stick" studies.

    Doesn't REQUIRE an alternate means of studying ancient climate --- because right now -- there ARE no viable ways to get more accurate "ancient weather or climate"..
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  8. sparky
    Online

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7,654
    Thanks Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +3,071
    I laugh and laugh and laugh.....

    I'll make this simple , CC is all about science VS corporate polluters

    So some corporate clown hires some enitty parading about as a scientist, and they write up their take on it all

    And you fools make gun of Gore

    Pot / Kettle
    ~S~
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    49,731
    Thanks Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +30,280
    Not really. The insane clown posse that did all they could to scare you shitless and misinterpret the science have all left town. Show is basically over. Just waiting on the fat lady to sing. ALL of the original apocalyptic projections have been revised down until the "crisis" -- is really just another enviro problem in a SEA of enviro problems.

    And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. No more than the breath you exhale. Or the water vapor portion of GHouse gases that DOMINATE the "thermal blanket" of the planet and keeps you from becoming a human popsicle.

    Science STILL is not settled. Never was. Politics and science don't mix. Move on. Fix the OTHER pressing enviro problems like REAL pollution..
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. sparky
    Online

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7,654
    Thanks Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +3,071
    Yes it is, and it's easily found
    the world's science community is nearly unanimous with CC
    the only debate is anthropogenics

    More shill politicians discredit science for their chief benefaciaries, the kings of hydrocarbons oilocracy pays better than any green machine constituent.


    Beware the spectur of interconnectability .....>>

     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page