Climate continues to change.

[Hal9000_]

Well...

We've now pivoted from "humanity is insignificant" to "natural changes" to "religion".

Among other straw men and false dichotomies.


The new meme: "Earth is Greening!".

 

[Conager]

Well...

We've now pivoted from "humanity is insignificant" to "natural changes" to "religion".

Among other straw men and false dichotomies.


The new meme: "Earth is Greening!".

Wow! Just look at all those rhetorical debate buzzwords with no actual rhetorical argument being advanced.

Quelle surprise

 

[Hal9000_]

Wow! Just look at all those rhetorical debate buzzwords with no actual rhetorical argument being advanced.

Quelle surprise

Hey!

Pumping out and burning of oil and gas has zero effect on the atmosphere and climate.

Prove me wrong.

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

Former British government minister Michael Portillo hits the nail right on the head regarding climate change in just 1 minute, 39 seconds.

https://youtu.be/7ZFwuQt9rC8

 

[Conager]

Hey!

Pumping out and burning of oil and gas has zero effect on the atmosphere and climate.

Prove me wrong.

Now you see that actually is a strawman. It is not an argument anyone else has erected. That was all you.

You're actually worse at this than Frodo which is saying something.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If all ya'll were slapped with a board in the face you'd be arguing about whether it was birch or beech.

Does it really make a difference?

That's actually a pretty good summation of my view on the CC junk.

Climate indisputably changes but the Gorephiles are insistent that the only possible reason it could be happening is our activity. Part of the issue being natural is heresy to them. Burn the witch!

And then they propose solutions that could potentially DESTROY us. Because science! Be quiet you denier! Sacrifice him to the Gods!

Isn't it enough that it is changing and we probably can't change that so hey let's adapt! And if we are impacting it, we could ease up a little. Maybe reduce use of fossil fuels. (We'll never be able to STOP using them)


The ONLY real solution to ACC is USE LESS. (but people will die because you can't support 8 billion people without technology and energy)

There IS no solution to naturally occurring CC.


A note about feeding 8b people. Actually, the Chinese do an unbelievable job of feeding their > 1b using extensive ocean and freshwater seafood farms. To the extent I know about it, it appears to be low tech compared to our fossil fuel driven, high tech farming industry. It impacts ecology, obviously and thus potentially the environment / climate, but they do a pretty good job.

 

[trysail]

​

 

[phrodeau]

Congratulations! That's what we in the sciences call a critical thinking skill. Do you see what you did? The first thing you thought of when you looked at my nice little bar graph was: is this data any good? What is its source?

That's call skeptical thinking. It's how researchers think. They ask questions about where the data and how the data they are using to build a hypothesis was gathered and whether it is reliable.

What they don't do is cherry pick only the data which supports their hypothesis.

That's what I suspect you do. It's the same thing good Christians do too. They look out into the world and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, if they are a good and proper Christians, they maintain their faith in Jesus.

That's actually the very definition of Faith: To believe something that there is strong evidence for it not being thus. That's faith. It's not faith to believe shit for which there is strong evidence. That's just common sense.

To have faith you have to have your faith challenged and been found not wanting. This takes a special kind of stupid. Just like when Abraham was asked by Jehovah to kill his son. The fucking dude was gonna do it too. Damn, he had a bad case of the faith!

Hey, but I'm wrong to talk down spiritual faith. I don't mean to diss Christians. In the right epistemological framework faith is a good thing. Keep the faith, man. Faith can get you through some really tough spots in life.

It's just that in the special epistemological framework of science, faith isn't just stupid. It simply doesn't exist. No such concept. That's why we keeping making the point that AGW theory isn't really science, 'cause you got to have the faith of Abraham to believe.

Me? I got no faith. I don't have a clue what the weather is going to be like in 100 years.

You have faith. You know for sure what the weather will be doing in 100 years.

BTW, here's the link you asked for:

https://i2.wp.com/www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg

I didn’t ask for that link. I asked if you drew it, and you claimed to.

So what do your NOAA associates think about you hanging out with guys from JPL and Hadley?

 

[trysail]

​

 

[phrodeau]

Posted in another thread:

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time





by Tony Heller

"...NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895..."


more...



​

​

So how far do we trust NOAA’s hurricane data?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn’t ask for that link. I asked if you drew it, and you claimed to.

So what do your NOAA associates think about you hanging out with guys from JPL and Hadley?

In fairness to Lustopia, denial about climate change is deeply ingrained within their collective psyche, so lying comes second nature to them. See also: Trysail.

 

[von_Bismarck]

​

I suppose you think this is funny and clever?

 

[Rightguide]

In fairness to Lustopia, denial about climate change is deeply ingrained within their collective psyche, so lying comes second nature to them. See also: Trysail.

There seems to be an intellectual drought at Rob's place.

 

[Hal9000_]

Iceland Held A Funeral For Its First Glacier Lost To Climate Change And Left This Warning Sign

"Officials and researchers gathered Sunday in Iceland for a funeral at the site of the island nation's first glacier lost to climate change, an icy victim as the world warms at an unprecedented rate.

Dozens of people, including Iceland's prime minister and other leaders, hiked to the site of the once-iconic Okjökull glacier, which was declared dead in 2014, to install a plaque that carries a message to the future and memorialize the frozen body that once spanned 15 square miles but has since melted into a lake."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/passantino/iceland-held-a-funeral-for-its-first-glacier-lost-to

 

[von_Bismarck]

Posted in another thread:So how far do we trust NOAA’s hurricane data?

Has tryfail ever responded directly to a question or criticism?

 

[lustatopia]

Has tryfail ever responded directly to a question or criticism?

I've explained the NOAA dataset on hurricane activity to phrodeau before:

If you look at an NOAA graph of US hurricanes (as a proxy for accumulated cyclonic energy) you'll see no increased activity.

There is no long term increase in hurricane numbers or strength.

No one in any scientific community believes there is any significant increase in extreme weather globally. But still it is a popular myth among the faithful. Just like Catholics believe in saints, I guess.

Extreme weather is declining slightly. That makes sense, because the cause of extreme weather is the interface between COLD and hot air masses. If you warm the COLD air mass, even just a little bit, the resulting storm energy slope between the air masses is that much lower, thus less extreme.

The physics behind the Global Warming hypothesis predicts less extreme weather globally, but don't let the science get in the way of a good Old Testament style fire and brimstone tale! Fuck, you can't go around telling people there are less tornadoes today than in the past because global warming. How is that going scare people into voting for the Green New Deal?

But back to cyclonic energy and how satellites tilt the data.

If you adjust for the fact that before we had satellites the number and intensity of hurricanes was based upon sightings of those hurricanes that crossed over shipping lanes or made landfall, then total accumulated cyclonic energy is significantly lower today then in 1900.

Today with satellites even a very minor storm that reaches cyclonic force for a mere 30 minutes in the middle of the Pacific with no one around is counted from space. Not so in the past...Thus the number of hurricanes recorded before satellites is unrepresented.

Again, this totally makes sense to AGW theory, which postulates most of the warming should occur at the higher latitudes, NOT in the tropics. Thus, the temperature gradient is less extreme. Less extreme gradient, less extreme weather. Fewer hurricanes.

So in reality, the number of hurricanes today is bit lower than in the recent past. The landfall trends back that up too, showing a slight decline. The same goes for tornadoes.

Hope that is helpful.

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, so although so many hurricanes stayed hidden in olden days, you can still produce a graph showing the exact numbers from a hundred years ago.

Got a similar graph for cyclones or typhoons, or any other country in the world?

 

[Hal9000_]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

 

[Conager]

What a beautiful hymn to close out the Sabbath service with. Isn't statistical noise, absent any meaningful variables, culled from disparate, arbitrarily homogenized data sets fun, especially when you crank up the amplitude?

If I didn't know better I would swear that that might actually mean something.

Now do it in a hundredth of a degree Farenheit per year plotted, instead of a quarter of a tenth of a degree celsius!

. . .or do you think it looks more sciencey in metric?

 

[Hal9000_]

instead of a quarter of a tenth of a degree celsius!

It's actually 1/10 of one degree C on the left. F is on the right. New glasses?



Compare with CO2 concentration:

 

[lustatopia]

Oh, so although so many hurricanes stayed hidden in olden days, you can still produce a graph showing the exact numbers from a hundred years ago.

Got a similar graph for cyclones or typhoons, or any other country in the world?

Perhaps I explained it poorly. Satellites today never miss counting even the shortest lived hurricane on the planet. In the past, hurricanes that failed to make landfall were under counted.

There is no accurate way to adjust the datasets for this fact of life, so the statistically rather flat numbers in hurricane activity shown means the number of hurricanes have declined since 1900.

Thus, the oft-repeated conventional wisdom that "extreme weather" is dramatically increasing because of global warming is utterly false, at least as far as accumulated cyclonic energy is concern, which btw, is much of the storm energy on the planet.

We could go after the rest of the storm energy by continuing this line of reasoning with tornadoes in the Midwest as well. Then move on to floods and droughts.

 

[Conager]

It's actually 1/10 of one degree C on the left. F is on the right. New glasses?



Compare with CO2 concentration:

Apparently you do because you can't picture a square. The Y-mantissa which is LABELED in tenths has a hash mark vertically about the same height as the width of four years. You could shrink or stretch the height of that really scary graph as much as you like without changing the scale, which has nothing to do with the amplitude of the graph.

Which is why I expressed it in relation to the visual increments per year against the *chosen* widths of the bars representing the years.

This is why we can't have a productive discussion about anything because most of you don't seem to know anything about mathematics or graphing. Every 7th grade science student that ever had a failed experiment that had basically meaningless data points learned how to stretch their graph to make it look like they actually accomplished something. Which is what the guy that made your graph did.

We're not even going to discuss the likelihood that you had data sets from 1900 accurate ti a quarter of a tenth of a degree, justifying stretching that graph the way they did.

 

[Hal9000_]

Apparently...

Just...wow.

Decimals confound you. Apparently.

You should email the boss of whomever made that graph at NOAA and demand correction!

Also, get your eyes checked.

 

[Conager]

Just...wow.

Decimals confound you. Apparently.

You should email the boss of whomever made that graph at NOAA and demand correction!

Also, get your eyes checked.

Wow, just wow: you are astonishingly stupid. Like Phrodeau-struggling-painfully-with-the-comcept-of-significant-figures level stupid.

 

[lustatopia]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

This is an excellent graph that shows the temperatures are NOT tracking with CO2 emissions. While the temperatures are flopping around, CO2 is constantly, smoothly increasing each year by about 1ppm in the first half of the graft and 2ppm in the most recent years.

The smooth arc of the increase in CO2 is not replicated in the up and downs in temperatures!

According to the "settled science" each part per million of CO2 has the power to warm the climate slightly less than the part per million that came before it. Got that?

A doubling of CO2 will produce a 1.2c to 3c rise in temperature (depending on who you ask) then you gotta double it again to get another 1.2 to 3c rise in temperature.

That means that the most rapid and largest gains in temperature should have occurred in the early years of rising CO2 levels, yet this graphic clearly shows that when the CO2 had the most power to drive higher temperatures the temperatures were in free fall from 1880 to 1920. WTF?

Maybe you could hand wave that obvious falsification of the hypthesis away if once the rise in temperatures got going in 1920 it more closely tracked the CO2 curve

But NOOOOO. The temperature tops in 1947, then starts to decline again! WTF?

Meanwhile, CO2 levels are relentless marching ever higher as temperatures do a slow dip for like 50 goddamn years. The so-called mid-20th century cool period is the second falsification of the AGW theory, but who cares?

According to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory temperatures should have risen by at least 1c by 1950 and ~2.5c by 2000.

By now we are talking religion, not science. The dolt who posted this graph is so clueless he imagines it looks scary and so is evidence we are all doomed. That's how scientifically illiterate we are today. If I was a fucking warmist I would be hiding this graphic.

The rises in temperature during the the 21st century are - in my opinion - likely to be partly due to human influences, but the natural non-human variability shown earlier in the data is twice the magnitude of whatever the human influence could be thus far.

Bottomline: This graph is a falsification of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, at least in its "strong" version which says that CO2 levels are the controlling factor in the climate and that warming trend is a prelude to catastrophe. Quite the contrary is shown by this graph.

The data here show a high degree of natural climate variability not predicted by the AGW hypothesis. If the graphic had gone back to 900AD we would see that it was actually warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) than it is today! AGW theory has no explanation for why it was warmer in the past - at little more than half of today's CO2 levels - than today.

Total fail. We need a new theory of climate variability.