Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[Que]

That's an utterly bogus argument, since you didn't make one peep about Trysail's graphs, loser.

OK, "Winner."

Trysail is using virtually the same information, graphed with SLIGHTLY more attention to "significant figures" to prove the OPPOSITE of what you think you are demonstrating i.e. that there a strong cause and effect suspected by the correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 emissions.

I could explain in more detail, but I highly doubt you are interested.

 

[RobDownSouth]

OK, "Winner."

Trysail is using virtually the same information, graphed with SLIGHTLY more attention to "significant figures" to prove the OPPOSITE of what you think you are demonstrating i.e. that there a strong cause and effect suspected by the correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 emissions.

I could explain in more detail, but I highly doubt you are interested.

If that were true, and it is not, it would signal a fundamental change in Trysail's behavior.

Trysail has spent literally years ignoring inconvenient facts, pimping out-of-scale graphs and engaging in wholesale deception in the discussion of climate change.

 

[Que]

If that were true, and it is not, it would signal a fundamental change in Trysail's behavior.

Trysail has spent literally years ignoring inconvenient facts, pimping out-of-scale graphs and engaging in wholesale deception in the discussion of climate change.

Is too!

 

[phrodeau]

OK, "Winner."

Trysail is using virtually the same information, graphed with SLIGHTLY more attention to "significant figures" to prove the OPPOSITE of what you think you are demonstrating i.e. that there a strong cause and effect suspected by the correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 emissions.

I could explain in more detail, but I highly doubt you are interested.

Oh, I would love to hear you explain how 35 years or 60 years of data is more significant than 400,000 years.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You are conflating CO2 with "pollution". It is a green house gas. naturally occuring, non-toxic, and its level is rising. The effect of various levels of greenhouse gass levels is UNKNOWN. So far the rising levels are NOT correlated with the (extremely modest) temperature increases which may or may not be part of normal climatic cycles.

IF temperatures were to rise TEN TIMES the amount seen tha last 50 years it is a fallacy to say it would be detrimental to human habitation of the planet. It would INCREASE food production.

A MUCH better question is should we stand OUR economy on its head over a lot of UNKNOWNS.

If you are not DEMANDING fast-tracking of nuclear power you are not serious about CO2 reduction.

As to the charts Phrodeau posted as I was posting this, typically they are for the mathematically illiterate... You cant have one mantissa with micro-graduations while the graph you are allegedly "correlating' is an order of 1/3 to 1/2 increase. MORE than misleading. But it sure does make impressive stained glass for the church of the holy climate.

None of which you are likely to believe.

We do know the effects of greenhouses gases. That's how we know they're greenhouses gases & that they trap heat here on Earth.

If the global average temperature was to rise 10 times what it already has risen the results would be catastrophic. Coastlines would be wiped out and hurricanes would be more powerful because the water is warmer.

No one has said anything about doing anything to the economy. Keep in mind that when the coastline is wiped out (as in your scenario) and there are more powerful hurricanes, that would require large amounts of money to clean up. There will also be environmental refugees and that will cost money.

 

[Que]

We do know the effects of greenhouses gases. That's how we know they're greenhouses gases & that they trap heat here on Earth.

If the global average temperature was to rise 10 times what it already has risen the results would be catastrophic. Coastlines would be wiped out and hurricanes would be more powerful because the water is warmer.

No one has said anything about doing anything to the economy. Keep in mind that when the coastline is wiped out (as in your scenario) and there are more powerful hurricanes, that would require large amounts of money to clean up. There will also be environmental refugees and that will cost money.

1) You missed the entire point. NO ONE KNOWS HOW EFFECTIVE SO CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE AT RETAINING HEAT. Does the effectiveness decrease beyond a certain range, increase, decrease...NO ONE KNOWS... Do they trap 1% 30% 82%?...is it a straight line graph, is it a logarithmic scale? We do know that DOUBLING the amount of carbon dioxide created NO directly attributable effect.

2) 10 x .3 degrees is 3 degrees. Despite what the eminent Climate scientist, Dr. Albert Gore Jr. has said, polar bears will not die if the temperature rises 3 degrees.

3) No, you haven't talked about that because you have NO idea what your cult is proposing would cost in actual dollars, nor do you care.

 

[Que]

Oh, I would love to hear you explain how 35 years or 60 years of data is more significant than 400,000 years.

Oh you have temperature readings from 400,000 years ago?

 

[phrodeau]

1) You missed the entire point. NO ONE KNOWS HOW EFFECTIVE SO CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE AT RETAINING HEAT. Does the effectiveness decrease beyond a certain range, increase, decrease...NO ONE KNOWS... Do they trap 1% 30% 82%?...is it a straight line graph, is it a logarithmic scale? We do know that DOUBLING the amount of carbon dioxide created NO directly attributable effect.

2) 10 x .3 degrees is 3 degrees. Despite what the eminent Climate scientist, Dr. Albert Gore Jr. has said, polar bears will not die if the temperature rises 3 degrees.

3) No, you haven't talked about that because you have NO idea what your cult is proposing would cost in actual dollars, nor do you care.

I see you have no idea what the significant figures should be.

 

[Que]

I see you have no idea what the significant figures should be.

you don't even know what the phrase "significant figures" means.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1) You missed the entire point. NO ONE KNOWS HOW EFFECTIVE SO CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE AT RETAINING HEAT. Does the effectiveness decrease beyond a certain range, increase, decrease...NO ONE KNOWS... Do they trap 1% 30% 82%?...is it a straight line graph, is it a logarithmic scale? We do know that DOUBLING the amount of carbon dioxide created NO directly attributable effect.

2) 10 x .3 degrees is 3 degrees. Despite what the eminent Climate scientist, Dr. Albert Gore Jr. has said, polar bears will not die if the temperature rises 3 degrees.

3) No, you haven't talked about that because you have NO idea what your cult is proposing would cost in actual dollars, nor do you care.

1. Let's see some proof.
2. 3 degrees Celsius on average is a huge deal. Remember, it's an average, so some places are going to be more, likely the poles.
3. #ascriptionagain

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

you don't even know what the phrase "significant figures" means.

Neither did Trysail. You should explain what it means in regards to climate change.

 

[phrodeau]

you don't even know what the phrase "significant figures" means.

Is this where we can bring up "ascription" again?

 

[Que]

1. Let's see some proof.
2. 3 degrees Celsius on average is a huge deal. Remember, it's an average, so some places are going to be more, likely the poles.
3. #ascriptionagain

1)Yes, LET'S see some proof...The world is waiting for that.

Oh, wait were you waiting for me to prove a negative? Did you miss the NO ONE KNOWS part?

You apparently think (AccurateAscription) that YOU KNOW, so enlighten the world and PROVE the correlation for x amount of CO2 causing Y increase in temperature. GO ahead and make your scholarly paper as detailed as you like.

2) Yeah, I am sure that your completely insulating thermal blanket of AIR is going to MAGICALLY cause MASSIVE heating of the areas that currently receive the LEAST solar radiation whilst having a minor effect on the areas that currently receive the MOST solar radiation. Apparently, you have no idea why anyone is taking an average, or why discussing an average of temperature would be useful.

You may have noticed we have this cycle of temperatures every 24 hours where it gets COLDER when the sun is not shining. There is your NOT conservation of energy...it LEAVES.

3) Go ahead...show me some of the thinking you have done on the cost-benefit analysis of say, just the recent EPA plans on essentially making coal not viable. You DO know that your Nissan Leaf runs on coal, right?)( Or you could admit the #ascription was accurate.

 

[Que]

Is this where we can bring up "ascription" again?

Nope, you just DEMONSTRATED that you did not know what the term meant.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1) You missed the entire point. NO ONE KNOWS HOW EFFECTIVE SO CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE AT RETAINING HEAT. Does the effectiveness decrease beyond a certain range, increase, decrease...NO ONE KNOWS... Do they trap 1% 30% 82%?...is it a straight line graph, is it a logarithmic scale? We do know that DOUBLING the amount of carbon dioxide created NO directly attributable effect.

2) 10 x .3 degrees is 3 degrees. Despite what the eminent Climate scientist, Dr. Albert Gore Jr. has said, polar bears will not die if the temperature rises 3 degrees.

3) No, you haven't talked about that because you have NO idea what your cult is proposing would cost in actual dollars, nor do you care.

You should easily be able to prove that the temperature stayed the same while the C02 in the air doubles. That's not proving a negative.

 

[Que]

Neither did Trysail. You should explain what it means in regards to climate change.

It is what it means mathematically in ANY scientific endeavor. I don't think Trysail was teaching rudimentary quantification mathematics.

Explain how you can form what look like complete sentences while having absolutely no idea what it is you are asking?

Click the link, study the lesson, do the sample problem, and then DON'T get back to me because if AFTER you actually understand "sig figs" you still have no idea why I would bring it up, I cannot help you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1)Yes, LET'S see some proof...The world is waiting for that.

Oh, wait were you waiting for me to prove a negative? Did you miss the NO ONE KNOWS part?

You apparently think (AccurateAscription) that YOU KNOW, so enlighten the world and PROVE the correlation for x amount of CO2 causing Y increase in temperature. GO ahead and make your scholarly paper as detailed as you like.

2) Yeah, I am sure that your completely insulating thermal blanket of AIR is going to MAGICALLY cause MASSIVE heating of the areas that currently receive the LEAST solar radiation whilst having a minor effect on the areas that currently receive the MOST solar radiation. Apparently, you have no idea why anyone is taking an average, or why discussing an average of temperature would be useful.

You may have noticed we have this cycle of temperatures every 24 hours where it gets COLDER when the sun is not shining. There is your NOT conservation of energy...it LEAVES.

3) Go ahead...show me some of the thinking you have done on the cost-benefit analysis of say, just the recent EPA plans on essentially making coal not viable. You DO know that your Nissan Leaf runs on coal, right?)( Or you could admit the #ascription was accurate.

You still don't know what ascription means. I never said any of that. Sorry, I'm not going to prove something that I never claimed.

 

[Que]

You still don't know what ascription means. I never said any of that. Sorry, I'm not going to prove something that I never claimed.

Um...mushroom?

My ASCRIPTION was that YOU haven't thought ANY of the economics through. Claiming that you never DISCUSSED any of the economics (that I maintain you never even thought about) does NOT prove that you DID think about it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Um...mushroom?

My ASCRIPTION was that YOU haven't thought ANY of the economics through. Claiming that you never DISCUSSED any of the economics (that I maintain you never even thought about) does NOT prove that you DID think about it.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[Que]

Quoted for posterity.

Quoted for stupidity. Your grand-kids are gonna want to read that? Really?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It looks like query is about a month or so from going full DizzyBunny.

He's already devolved into Vettemode "FUCK YOU ! OWN IT!" More than once. Now the random all caps strewn throughout his posts. It can't be long until he just nails that cap-lock key and goes to town with spittle flecked rants.

 

[Ishmael]

Hey Trysail

Ishtat put these points to you way way back but you didn't respond.

Simplified, he is asking you. Is it good policy to pollute the planet and its atmosphere in the hope that nothing untoward occurs? Or do we wait for the matter to be proved one way or another by which time rectification measures will be too late?

I have no problem accepting that it may take 100 years of data to prove the point, but equally see no value in turning the planet into a cess pit in the mean time, which seems to be your policy.

First of all the discussion isn't about pollutants. You know, PCB's, Phyenols, SO2, and stuff like that. The thread is about a theory. So the question isn't relevant.

Unless..........

He's trying to play a little end run and claim that CO2, an atmospheric gas that without which 99.9999999999% of all life as we know it wouldn't exist, is a pollutant. Then it's just a stupid question based on a false premise.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, I would love to hear you explain how 35 years or 60 years of data is more significant than 400,000 years.

Oh you have temperature readings from 400,000 years ago?

Dozens of ice cores.

 

[Que]

Dozens of ice cores.

Not exactly accurate to .3 of a degree are they?

friend of mine (an actual scientist) has tried persuade me that they can reasonable infer a lot of fairly accurate temperature ranges using that sort of historical data, tree-rings and the like...

The thing is as they look at the historical data (such as it is) it does NOT show CO2 as some sort of leading indicator. It is random.

 

[phrodeau]

Trysail has evolved from the CO2 graphs with broad scales and nearly flat lines, to CO2 graphs that show a dramatic increase next to temp graphs with broad scales and nearly flat lines. And Query wants to argue about significant figures.

Query also wants us to come up with solutions that won't hurt the economy, which is an acknowledgment that a problem exists.