The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[gslack]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

Yeah that teenage, home-schooled, internet scientist is truly full of it, as well as full of himself...A real piece of work..

 

[itfitzme]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

Does demand follow suppy, or supply follow demand? It's a feedback loop.

That gslack gave you a thanks... priceless.

 

[gslack]

Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

Does demand follow suppy, or supply follow demand? It's a feedback loop.

That gslack gave you a thanks... priceless.

LOL, and what does that mean in this context here? Come on socko quit rambling nonsense already. Your Jeff Spiccoli teaches esoteric science routine passed old a while ago. You too drunk or stoned to make a viable point? Too burned out maybe?

A bit of advice.. Being the smartest guy in your smoking circle doesn't make you smart. It just means you're an imaginative stoner compared to the stoners you hang with. And imaginative doesn't mean smarter,just means you're more full of shit...

 

[IanC]

Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).

Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.

When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.

That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.

That is high rate of change.

"In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"

Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.


The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

Climate Desk

exactly what I have been saying. Marcott's re-worked proxy reconstruction was thoroughly demolished for recent times yet the press release will live forever. itfitzme probably doesn't even know about the problems or the author's statement of retraction due to web based criticisms. or perhaps he does and chooses to ignore it.*

the media loves a new scary climate story but they have no time or interest for setting the story straight after it has been shown to be incorrect.

every time you look at these type of science-by-press-release stories more closely you find dodgy methodology and exaggerated conclusions. every ******* time.

You can say whatever you want, but no one is gonna believe you.

Cuz according to Nature;

Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak : Nature News & Comment

So some prefer

and

Because they don't like

"The temperature trends that the team identified for the past 2,000 years are statistically indistinguishable from results obtained by other researchers in a previous study2, says Marcott. “That gives us confidence that the rest of our record is right too,” he adds."

and

Which, of course, doesn't change

and I find no retraction, just a lot of screamimg for it. *

*There is this “The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes,” they admitted in a news release over Easter."

From*InvestigateDaily ? New global warming scandal hits climate science

But no link to the news release.

Though you are welcome to post it. Here is the university site.*News Releases | News & Research Communications | Oregon State University

Until then, that's the new, and were sticking to it.

Don't you just hate that you just can't contol everyone? *Damn internet

Maybe you should run for election as Internet Police Chief.

marcott retraction - Google Search

(I'm tempted to post thing just to read you get pissed off. *Oop, did I type that out loud?)

(I'm tempted to post thing just to read you get pissed off. *Oop, did I type that out loud?)???

Im no internet policeman. I also prefer not to be the person who puts down link after link after link. there was already quite a few threads about Marcott13 when it was released, and I dont intend to re-fight that war, we already won. Climate Audit and Real Climate have more than enough info to get you going from both sides, including the admission that the recent end of the graph is not 'robust' and therefore should not be used as evidence. this is contrary to the abstract of the paper and especially to the comments made to the media at the release of the paper.


one of the biggest problems laymen have is the concept of why it is incommensurate to add high sensitivy recent intrumental data to low sensitivity proxy data. scientists do know, that is why 'hide the decline' is such a scandal.

 

[PMZ]

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation. How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming. Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?

The very definition of a greenhouse gas. Have you heard that term?

 

[PMZ]

No, it's not, you ignorant fool. It is a drafting program in a computer. It has no modeling capabilities at all. It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK. But they have zero engineering capabilities.

Go to school. You KNOW nothing.

And it shows....

He thinks that is a model. He thinks a model is like the plastic replicas you built as a kid. If it looks like the finished product might look...it is a model. Never mind that it has no relationship to what an actual model is. Understanding what an actual computer model is is so far past his knowledge base that there really isn't even a place to start.

Hell, he probably has "models" hanging from fishing line in his mom's basement where he lives.

I certainly agree that Westfall is so far behind the times that it's hard to imagine him successfully flying a kite.

 

[PMZ]

Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Waytago!

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.

Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.

Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.

No, it isn't. A CAD design is just that a DESIGN. A model is designed to recreate behavior characteristics in the REAL WORLD. Period. Every time you open your mouth you expose your profound ignorance for all to see.

You've apparently been in a cave for quite some time. Perhaps that's why you're so anxious to drag the rest of us back there.

 

[PMZ]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

That's actually been settled for quite some time now. The CO2 is the same CO2 sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, and the impact of its return to the atmosphere is exactly the reverse is of what happened when it was removed from the atmosphere.

No big surprise. Just the nature of greenhouse gasses.

 

[PMZ]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.

No, it isn't speculation. Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea. ALL historical data says that warmer is better. PERIOD.

Ask the frog in the boiling water if warmer is better.

There is no question that humankind can adapt to a warmer climate. It's just going to take much of our output for a century or so. It's just a matter of rearranging civilization some.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.

Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.

A model would be a representation of something, or in the computer modeling sense not only 3D but realistic in it's behavior and actions.

CAD is a 2D computer drafting program. Drafting is a drawing and a drawing is 2D. It can give 3D measurements and draw from various angles to get the idea of how the thing that it represents is to be built, but it is still a 2D drawing.

To represent 3D you need a 3D modeling program. Notice the fact it is called a modeling program and not a CAD program... Yeah because it's in 3D and not 2D...

For a self-proclaimed scientist you're not very knowledgeable on the simplest of concepts...

You didn't know CO2 breaks down naturally over time, and you didn't know modeling and drafting are different things, and didn't why they are, what was your field again? I bet you got one of those new "green degrees". Something like an associates degree in sustainable developmental bullshit...ROFL

So, if you redefine what CAD means to only that which is obsolete, than your words could be construed as meaningful.

I guess redefining English is no more presumptuous than redefining science.

 

[PMZ]

In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.

No, it isn't speculation. Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea. ALL historical data says that warmer is better. PERIOD.

I speculate on investments and choosing dentists all the time without much empirical data. I do better than 50/50...

I've actually heard the word "speculate" many times at conferences.. I do believe it's accepted coinage of advanced research...

You betcha. Like all words "speculate" is a fine word in the right context. Like when one is speculating. Otherwise, it's a bad word to use. Like when you're not speculating.

 

[PMZ]

So much for your evidence. Or do you define evidence as Subjective extrapolation, or is it just Chicken Little syndrome?

Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.

OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

 

[westwall]

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation. How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming. Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?

The very definition of a greenhouse gas. Have you heard that term?

Yes, we have. You claim that CO2 will raise temps. The temps havn't risen for 15 years at least. Show us an algorithm that explains how that is possible in light of CO2 levels continuing to rise to ever higher levels.

 

[westwall]

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.

Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

 

[westwall]

No, it's not, you ignorant fool. It is a drafting program in a computer. It has no modeling capabilities at all. It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK. But they have zero engineering capabilities.

Go to school. You KNOW nothing.

And it shows....

He thinks that is a model. He thinks a model is like the plastic replicas you built as a kid. If it looks like the finished product might look...it is a model. Never mind that it has no relationship to what an actual model is. Understanding what an actual computer model is is so far past his knowledge base that there really isn't even a place to start.

Hell, he probably has "models" hanging from fishing line in his mom's basement where he lives.

I certainly agree that Westfall is so far behind the times that it's hard to imagine him successfully flying a kite.

Says the idiot who has no clue of even the very basics. You're too funny....

 

[westwall]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

That's actually been settled for quite some time now. The CO2 is the same CO2 sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, and the impact of its return to the atmosphere is exactly the reverse is of what happened when it was removed from the atmosphere.

No big surprise. Just the nature of greenhouse gasses.

Yes, it has been settled for a very long time. CO2 FOLLOWS increased temperatures by 400 to 800 years.

 

[westwall]

No, it isn't speculation. Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea. ALL historical data says that warmer is better. PERIOD.

I speculate on investments and choosing dentists all the time without much empirical data. I do better than 50/50...

I've actually heard the word "speculate" many times at conferences.. I do believe it's accepted coinage of advanced research...

You betcha. Like all words "speculate" is a fine word in the right context. Like when one is speculating. Otherwise, it's a bad word to use. Like when you're not speculating.

Speculate is in the realm of charlatans.....like you.

 

[PMZ]

Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Waytago!

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

No, what the warmerists have is no chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything.

That's why they need bullshit computer models where they control the inputs.

There you are. It's those damn computers again. If we could go back to pencil and paper we'd be fat, dumb and happy.

The dinosauers didn't need computers. They went extinct without them.

 

[Oddball]

Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.

OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?