Climate continues to change.

[KingOrfeo]

How does climate change 170 times faster than the natural rate?

You know the answer to that.

 

[OldJourno]

You know the answer to that.

Wait. I think July just shot by me.

 

[OldJourno]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/12/humans-causing-climate-to-change-170-times-faster-than-natural-forces

It is bullshit as per usual, but on steroids. It is obviously based on the long discredited hockey stick graph that only Phodeau buys anymore.

The two "researchers" (as if repackaging a narrative is "research") assume a delta of one tenth of a degree per century is "normal." We can't even measure the temperature of the Earth on any given day with in one tenth of a degree accuracy now. They also ignore known, historical fluctuations.

Expect more throw shit against the wall "studies" as this scam implodes and soon to be defunded "scientists" struggle for grant money.

This "study" had screaming headl8nes two weeks ago. Even Phrodeau, with no mathmatical cognition, sensed it is bullshit which is why he threw it in here as a hail mary, with no link.

That retarded gambit can be played endlessly. A few days ago, some astronomers were positing that glacial periods line up with incidences of Earth's orbit being skewed by proximity to mars. Sounds reasonable, still not science until someone figures out the math. It either can be shown by astronomy and math, or it can't.

The most logical post in this thread.

 

[trysail]

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud ?
Investors Business Daily

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate.

As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.

And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments. Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science. Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement. Meanwhile, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry recently retired, blaming the "CRAZINESS (her emphasis) in the field of climate science." Even so, mythical claims of a "consensus" among scientists about climate change continue in an effort to shut up critics. Those who dissent, and literally thousands of scientists and engineers do, are shouted down and harassed.

As Princeton University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ... It will potentially harm the image of all science."

It's time for some science Glasnost. New EPA Director Scott Pruitt has called for an open debate on climate science, rather than the name-calling and outright dishonesty of the past. Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.​

"I love liberty and I hate fraud."

- H.L. Mencken
​

 

[Hard_Rom]

There is a difference between weather and climate.

Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.

Radical changes in weather are par for the day in many locations at some times of the year. Changes to climate are much much slower. Usually!

 

[Disgustipated]

There is a difference between weather and climate.

Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.

Radical changes in weather are par for the day in many locations at some times of the year. Changes to climate are much much slower. Usually!

We've passed remedial classes 27 threads ago, dummy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wait. I think July just shot by me.

Many things do.

 

[Conager]

You can't say exactly how wrong it might be. You have no scientific counter to the conclusion. You can only say it must be wrong because you think it is.

Religion much?

No, I'm saying it's wrong because of math. I've been explaining this to you for about three years. I keep telling you to spend an afternoon and learn about significant figures.

Until you understand the concept of significant figures, you and I cannot have a conversation about this because you are mathematically illiterate.

Technically speaking you suffer from innumeracy. This is not a you-specific dig. Most teachers, for example, are similarly afflicted.

Let me explain it to you as simply as I can- if the only measuring tool that you have is a 55 gallon drum you cannot accurately tell me how many drops of water you measured with a confidence factor of 1/10 of 1% of a drop.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just starting with one item:

"Three: reforestation on a grand scale."

Just how is that to be accomplished without a form of genocide never before to be seen on the face of the earth?

By not planting trees on land now under cultivation. There is plenty of uncultivated land in the world where trees can grow but do not at present.

 

[phrodeau]

No, I'm saying it's wrong because of math. I've been explaining this to you for about three years. I keep telling you to spend an afternoon and learn about significant figures.

Until you understand the concept of significant figures, you and I cannot have a conversation about this because you are mathematically illiterate.

Technically speaking you suffer from innumeracy. This is not a you-specific dig. Most teachers, for example, are similarly afflicted.

Let me explain it to you as simply as I can- if the only measuring tool that you have is a 55 gallon drum you cannot accurately tell me how many drops of water you measured with a confidence factor of 1/10 of 1% of a drop.

Please demonstrate how that argument is relevant in the fields of glacial retreat, ocean acidification or extinction rates.

 

[Hard_Rom]

We've passed remedial classes 27 threads ago, dummy.

Then I would suggest you get held back. Because you did not pass the course. Dummy!

 

[OldJourno]

The shift in the Pacific in 1978, called the Great Pacific Climatic Shift, from cold to warm naturally started elevating global temperatures, and that was followed by shifts in the IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) and, most importantly for Europe and the Arctic, the Atlantic to its warm phase. It does not take a science guy, just common sense, to understand the earth’s major warm ocean bodies, with 1000x the heat capacity of the air, would have a warming effect on the planet. (Inconvenient truth: Warming oceans also release CO2.) But why quibble with such trivialities as the ocean when you can just label people like the late Dr. William Gray, who had 50 years of experience in the field and a PhD — something Bill does not have — delusional? Perhaps a read of his paper is in order.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.

Breaking: If Joe Bastardi is a "climatologist," then this means that not "all" climatologists buy into the global warming hokum.

 

[phrodeau]

The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77 was one of the Pacific decadal oscillations. It reversed to a cooling phase in 1997/98.

 

[OldJourno]

Bastardi's conclusion: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response?

Since the science is settled, we know that if all the proposed rules are adhered to - at great cost - the global temperature might drop by about a degree.
Why not adapt?

 

[Conager]

Please demonstrate how that argument is relevant in the fields of glacial retreat, ocean acidification or extinction rates.

That's not just moviing the goalposts that's changing the entire subject. At issue is your bullshit statement that the climate is warming at 170 times the rate that it would without humans which is bullshit as I explained.

You also do not have minute-by-minute inch-by-inch records of glaciers advancing and retresting. We have general trends of what happened over EONS. We have no historic records on the levels of acidity in the ocean over those eons. Animal extinction is the silliest of your whines. No polar bears have drowned over a possible 1/2 inch in ocean level. Mankind threatens habitat and outright killing animals is a far bigger concern than 1/2 a degree (maybe) in temperature variance.

Just throw anything against the wall. Maybe something will stick.

 

[Conager]

Bastardi's conclusion: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response?

Since the science is settled, we know that if all the proposed rules are adhered to - at great cost - the global temperature might drop by about a degree.
Why not adapt?

We don't even know that. No one can quantify the current or future effects of burning fossil fuels. Just intuitively, burning less seems like a great idea for the actual pollutants, never mind CO2. Keeping it in reserve. Keeping it inexpensive for developing countries.

If we knew for a fact that the cycles the Sun goes through or planetary orbit changes was going to cause another Ice Age we do not have the knowledge on what it would take to warm the planet to human habitation levels.

The real proof that dillitantes like Phrodeau have no actual interest in science is their dissinterest in nuclear energy. Carbon free and abundant.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm sure dumping coal waste into streams is totally good for the future babies I don't abort.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We don't even know that. No one can quantify the current or future effects of burning fossil fuels.

Of course they can. Every kilogram burned releases a known quantity of gaseous CO2, the environmental effects of which are predictable.

 

[Conager]

Of course they can. Every kilogram burned releases a predictable quantity of gaseous CO2, the environmental effects of which are definitely predictable.

Oh, really? You should go work for NASA because they don't know.

So tell us. How many tons of CO2 in the atmosphere does it take to raise the mean Global temperature by 1 degree?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, really? You should go work for NASA because they don't know.

So tell us. How many tons of CO2 in the atmosphere does it take to raise the mean Global temperature by 1 degree?

I don't know, but a climatologist could make a well-educated guess.

 

[Conager]

I don't know, but a climatologist could make a well-educated guess.

Having a well-educated scientist make a guess is still a guess. So far none of the guesses have been even remotely close. You would know that if you knew anything about the subject.

At this point, not only (as I said) are they unable to quantify the amount of change one might expect if CO2 levels rise, they cannot explain the complete lack of correlation between definately rising CO2 levels and temperature.

 

[phrodeau]

That's not just moviing the goalposts that's changing the entire subject. At issue is your bullshit statement that the climate is warming at 170 times the rate that it would without humans which is bullshit as I explained.

You also do not have minute-by-minute inch-by-inch records of glaciers advancing and retresting. We have general trends of what happened over EONS. We have no historic records on the levels of acidity in the ocean over those eons. Animal extinction is the silliest of your whines. No polar bears have drowned over a possible 1/2 inch in ocean level. Mankind threatens habitat and outright killing animals is a far bigger concern than 1/2 a degree (maybe) in temperature variance.

Just throw anything against the wall. Maybe something will stick.

Since an eon is a billion years, you are correct. However, we do have ocean acidity records for the past 300 million years.

What was that about significant figures, again?

 

[Rightguide]

The climate changes, a few days ago we were in a rain storm, today we have sustained sunshine. We need a investigation.

 

[thør]

Putin can clean up this mess.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The climate changes, a few days ago we were in a rain storm, today we have sustained sunshine. We need a investigation.

That is weather not climate. You are held back a year for failing the course.