Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
You are never going to get it.
Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
You are never going to get it.
I repeat.
You repeated a lie and you know it.
A question can't be a lie.
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
Why not?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
"Even if we could halt global warming now. . ."
What global warming? I thought the high priests of your religion changed that to climate change during the current pause?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Global warming is and always has been a major part of climate change.
There has been no pause. If there was a pause, temperatures would have dropped, and they did not.
I repeat.
LIVINRFANTASIES
In a Cornfield Near You
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Posts
- 11,156
Denny
Weather goes thru cycles. Weather changes and it aways will.
It's like women, we have no control over changes.
If you don't like it move someplace else and find another woman.
Weather goes thru cycles. Weather changes and it aways will.
It's like women, we have no control over changes.
If you don't like it move someplace else and find another woman.
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,467
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Why Are Climate-change Models Flawed ? Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
(can you believe it?— the Boston frickin' Globe !!! )
Do you believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
I honestly can't tell if this is a flat-out scam or the work of a severely delusional nutjob (and there is no shortage of those to be found amongst the environmental zealotry).
Whichever it is, it's one of the funniest things I've seen this morning. Judging from the $49,000 reportedly raised to-date, that's $49,000 that's been separated from fools.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Yes, you sure are.ROTFLMFAO
"alternet" ???
Really ???
My, my, my we are getting desperate.
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,467
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
FUCKING NPR and its completely bent reporting on climate. Christ, you can't believe a goddamn thing those motherfuckers broadcast on the subject.
Jay Price's report ( http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522151922/rising-seas-threaten-coastal-military-bases ) on sea level rise at Sewell Point at the U.S. Navy's Norfolk base was a perfect example of the typically horrible bias of NPR in its "climate" reporting. It did not include any mention WHATSOEVER of the well-documented subsidence of the land in the area. The failure to report that FACT is a material misrepresentation. It is yet one more example of NPR repeatedly misinforming its listeners and the public in its climate reporting.
The actual FACTS:
"In any case, that post shows the trend of sea level rise at Sewells Point VA is 4.4 mm/yr and 3.8 mm/yr at Portsmouth, Virginia. IF the subsidence is in fact 2.7 mm/year, this puts the Sewells Point sea level rise without subsidence at 4.4 – 2.7 = 1.7 mm/year … and at Portsmouth, 3.8 – 2.7 = 1.1 mm/year rise excluding subsidence.
So it looks like in Virginia, IF we make their assumption of 2.7 mm/yr of subsidence, the sea level itself is historically going up at no more than two mm per year..."
-Willis Eschenbach
So it looks like in Virginia, IF we make their assumption of 2.7 mm/yr of subsidence, the sea level itself is historically going up at no more than two mm per year..."
-Willis Eschenbach
- Status
Similar threads
