Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
If he was a true believer he'd live in a beachfront trailer park in Florida. Without a rowboat. Rising sea levels? Pshaw.Is that supposed to be persuasive?
Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Evidence of an ability to perform deductive reasoning, understand abstract logic, demonstrable reading comprehension, and the ability to write a properly spelled, grammatically correct sentence are discriminates in deciding if someone's opinion is worthy of attention and response.
A resort to ad hominem statements automatically disqualifies a poster from being considered informed or worthy of response.
It's really quite simple: life is too short to waste time dealing with or worrying about morons.
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Time Enough For Love
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Time Enough For Love
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Does this mean that someone who posts about "the Klimate Krazies" is a moron? Good to know.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
He may have been suggesting that the absolute refusal to acknowledge any other point of view is an absurd position for a self described scientist. Which describes more people on the "OMG GLOBAL WARMING" side than the other...
William_James
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Posts
- 745
That's a fine sentiment.
Oh, wait.
Hey dimbulb
NOT EVEN CLOSE
Christ, you're gullible (and not real bright).
How the fuck do you think they get that liquid oxygen?
Where the fuck do you think they get the electricity for those ginchy Teslas?
I guess we'll add hypocrisy to the list of charges against tryfail.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Scientific inquiry isn't about points of view. It's about developing and refining theories based on the evidence. If trysail ever gets around to doing that, he might be worth reading.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The historic temperature record is completely unreliable. It's a fucking mess. It's a joke.
The U.S. surface station network is seriously flawed and the temperatures they have recorded are not accurate. The application of fudge factors in the form of adjustments and homogenization is a farce.
The temperature record for the rest of the world is even worse.
Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?
You don't really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad?
Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?
Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"
Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?
Please don't tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.
Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).
Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?
Are you kidding me ?
All this is even prior to considering the GISS homogenization adjustments or the adjustments made for the UHI effect.
These are measurement errors and uncertainties far in excess of the putative change in global temperatures.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.
Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this presentation], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
ht tp://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
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
Climate $cience has been so completely corrupted and politicized by careerists and hijacked by activists who hope to achieve political goals they otherwise would have no hope of attaining that the actual science has been obliterated.
What Are The Grounds For Concern About Global Warming?
by Javier and Andy May
Link to full article
"...This article was first written as a long comment contributing to a discussion over the Geological Society statement at the energy and climate blog Energy matters. Scientists of the Geological Society that authored the statements participated in the discussion to defend their views.
Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.
Physics shows that adding carbon dioxide leads to warming under laboratory conditions. It is generally assumed that a doubling of CO2 should produce a direct forcing of 3.7 W/m2 [1], that translates to a warming of 1°C (by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) to 1.2°C (by models taking into account latitude and season). But that is a maximum value valid only if total energy outflow is the same as radiative outflow. As there is also conduction, convection, and evaporation, the final warming without feedbacks is probably less. Then we have the problem of feedbacks that we don’t know and cannot properly measure. For some of the feedbacks, like cloud cover we don’t even know the sign of their contribution. And they are huge, a 1% change in albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 W/m2 [2], almost equivalent to a full doubling of CO2.
So, in essence we don’t know how much the Earth has warmed in response to the increase in CO2 for the past 67 years, and how much for other causes. That is the reason why, after expending billions on the question of climate sensitivity to CO2, we have not been able to reduce the range of possible values, 1.5°C to 4.5° C[3], a factor of 3, in the 39 years that have passed since the Charney Report was published [4]. A clear scientific failure.
Climate is a very complex system and adding CO2 to the atmosphere in great amounts since 1950 led first to cooling, then to warming, and lately to a stilling of temperatures until the 2014-16 El Niño. A different explanation is required for every period when the expected warming doesn’t take place, an approach that leaves Occam’s beard unshaved...
more...
Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.
Physics shows that adding carbon dioxide leads to warming under laboratory conditions. It is generally assumed that a doubling of CO2 should produce a direct forcing of 3.7 W/m2 [1], that translates to a warming of 1°C (by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) to 1.2°C (by models taking into account latitude and season). But that is a maximum value valid only if total energy outflow is the same as radiative outflow. As there is also conduction, convection, and evaporation, the final warming without feedbacks is probably less. Then we have the problem of feedbacks that we don’t know and cannot properly measure. For some of the feedbacks, like cloud cover we don’t even know the sign of their contribution. And they are huge, a 1% change in albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 W/m2 [2], almost equivalent to a full doubling of CO2.
So, in essence we don’t know how much the Earth has warmed in response to the increase in CO2 for the past 67 years, and how much for other causes. That is the reason why, after expending billions on the question of climate sensitivity to CO2, we have not been able to reduce the range of possible values, 1.5°C to 4.5° C[3], a factor of 3, in the 39 years that have passed since the Charney Report was published [4]. A clear scientific failure.
Climate is a very complex system and adding CO2 to the atmosphere in great amounts since 1950 led first to cooling, then to warming, and lately to a stilling of temperatures until the 2014-16 El Niño. A different explanation is required for every period when the expected warming doesn’t take place, an approach that leaves Occam’s beard unshaved...
more...
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
That's a fine sentiment.
Oh, wait.
I guess we'll add hypocrisy to the list of charges against tryfail.
So where do they get the energy to make the LOX?
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
So much try failing.
The oil and gas industry is not getting it's money's worth.
The oil and gas industry is not getting it's money's worth.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
I guess not.
William_James
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Posts
- 745
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Exactly, so where is the math for the electrical generation to make the LOX in Rob's post that Trysail justifiably laughed at?
BTW Do you want to re-think the level of stupid in your post or are you going to continue to explain space travel in a vacuum like it is a SciFi movie?
William_James
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Posts
- 745
.....
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Got it. So since I source my gasoline for the Prius at the gas station we don't really need to worry about the carbon footprint in the production and transport of that gasoline now do we?
I'm glad I can go back to eating steaks guilt-free again now that I understand how this whole carbon footprint works: as long as someone else generated the carbon it's not on my dime.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
William_James
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Posts
- 745
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
You think?
- Status
Similar threads
