patrick.net

Kakistocracy says

the far right crowd.

Define far right. Alex Jones hates W Bush, and Bush hate sTrump. Is W far right or is AJ? Or is Trump. At least one of these can't be "far right", by definition.

CBOEtrader says

Define far right

Ran out of time to play this morning. Have a great Sunday ! and don't forget to MAGA !

justme says

Do denialists even know basic thermal physics?

No group outside of advanced physics education programs know "basic thermal physics".

Since you are an expert, enlighten us.

justme says

Nor is average SURFACE AIR temperature indicative of the average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe.

Ok, please explain how our scientific community measures "average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe." Then explain your theory and hypothesis of the earth's temp. Most importantly: please include what measurement changes would support vs disprove your theory.

From my knuckle dragging perspective it looks like some global warming supporters can spin any data into supporting their theory. Without empirical guidelines there is no science. Show us the basic guidelines of your chosen scientific theory.

Kakistocracy says

CBOEtrader says

Define far right

Ran out of time to play this morning.

The forum will be here when you're ready to answer the tough questions :)

And here I thought the frozen tundra where I live will be like Hawaii when I am ready to retire-looks like it may be like the North Pole and liberals will still claim global warming or say global cooling is evidence of global warming!

www.youtube.com/embed/EYPapE-3FRw

Scientists are still at the "guess" step in the global warming theory. Until they present a future set of data that would either support or disprove the theory, it is not science.

The End.

justme says

that average SURFACE AIR temperature is NOT equal to the average temperature of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe?

Ya think?

2015 was the second warmest year EVER according to manipulated NASA data. 2016 was 4/100 of one degree hotter, THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! according to the alarmists.

Since then it has been getting colder.

The name has been changed to "climate change" for a reason.

Kakistocracy says

Ran out of time to play this morning.

Typically, when you confront alarmists with facts, they run away.

May 20 and cold AF on the west coast. Must be "climate change" ;)

Onvacation says

2015 was the second warmest year EVER according to manipulated NASA data. 2016 was 4/100 of one degree hotter, THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! according to the alarmists.

Since then it has been getting colder.

OMG one year deviation. The horror, the horror.

bob2356 says

The horror, the horror.

Some people are really disappointed that Manhattan is still above water.

marcus says

I see almost the complete opposite. There are different models that all the science people and most of the intelligent folks understand are only models based on educated guesses (not predictions). It was always about hypotheses, trends, scientific facts, evidence and RISK ..

IT was never about anyone claiming to have absolute certainty about what's happening. But it's the denier right wingers, that use the argument that without absolute certainty 9 different ways from Sunday, it's foolhardy to avoid risk simply by expediting the use of alternative and more environmentally friendly energy sources. Which is something that probably would have other long term geopolitical benefits anyway.

It's only those that massively profit from maximizing the use of fossil fuels that stand in the way of good common sense energy policy and investment.

This is called backpedaling. The skeptic's side has predicted this, and that prediction did come true. This is such an about face, that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.

No it's not. What's wrong with you people ? Do all republitards have a character disorder ? Does emotion totally cloud your ability to reason ?

It's like all the idiots claiming that the "libruls" have said all along that Trump colluded with the Russians. No they really didn't. They suspect that he totally might have, and Trump had a bunch of shady characters (including his son) working in his campaign. And Trump even joked about Russians hacking Hillary.

It's an investigation !

Malcolm says

This is such an about face that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.

Wtf ?

I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.

marcus says

Do all republitards have a character disorder ?

By definition.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

marcus says

I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.

No, but you reexamine the model when its predictive theory fails.

Malcolm says

This is called backpedaling.

And it has been going on for a while.

We don't hear about rising sea levels and imminent ice free arctic anymore because they did not happen. In spite of the dire warnings, the hockey stick of multiple degree temperature rise never happened. Thus global warming became climate change.

Now the alarmists warn of catastrophe if the temp goes up two more degrees by the end of the century and the only way to stop this is to buy carbon credits (Al Gore is selling them) or stop emitting co2.
But don't hold your breath for the alarmists to ever admit they were wrong about CAGW.

You act as if what's happened is so incredibly far from the projections of models. Sure, the most outragious "predictions' didn't come true, but even those tell you a lot about the intellectual dishonesty of the right wing skeptics. They love to quote Al Gore who said something to the effect that one scientist says POSSBLY the ice caps would be completely gone in the summer by 2014 (or whatever year it was).

From that they get "Gore predicted it. " If you call them on this lie, it's as if they are zombies that are programmed to not comprehend what you're talking about.

Do the deniers ever stop and notice "oh my god the arctic ice is melting really fast, faster than many of the projections ?" Of course not.

instead you get the asinine lie "nya nya nya nya nya, Gore predicted there would be no ice on earth by 2014" or some such bullshit.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold. Models take a bunch of inputs, including some assumptions based on historical correlations and so on. Everyone knows the earths climate is too complex to predict perfectly. To use the fact that it can't be predicted perfectly, as a cop out for denying a trend that's unfolding right before your eyes is in my opinion beyond stupid.

marcus says

You act as if what's happened is so incredibly for from the projections of models.

Not even sure what that means.

marcus says

Al Gore who said something to the effect that one scientist says POSSBLY the ice caps would be completely gone in the summer by 2014 (or whatever year it was).

Oh yeah. Did the scientist predict the current cooling?

Onvacation says

will alarmists ever admit they were wrong about CAGW.

marcus says

Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold.

Thats a start.

marcus says

Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold

How can there possibly be consensus and settled science then?

I know that you guys are all about black and white, absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this," but please consider this question.

What probability would you have to attribute to one of the worse projections above being accurate in order to base government policy on the POSSIBILITY.

Would it take an 80% chance that one of the worst projections in that graph are what's going to happen ? A 50% chance ?

For some people that are in the habit of thinking about the reality of complex systems and risk in terms of probability, they would go as low as 5% or possibly even lower. Certainly for any rational and sane person, a 10% chance that those worst projections are correct would be enough for strong action.

Malcolm says

How can there possibly be consensus and settled science then?

Because all of the graphs are of exponential increase in land and ocean temperatures. Thats the part that there is nearly total agreement on.

Onvacation says

Oh yeah. Did the scientist predict the current cooling?

Yes. Well not this one, not sure. But they do predict that these will happen. Please note that all the graphs have little down blips. the couple blue graphs have some very decent sized downturns (FAR bigger than the current one you are referring to, occurring between 2040 and 2060.

marcus says

Because all of the graphs are of exponential increase in land and ocean temperatures. Thats the part that there is nearly total agreement on.

Except, that it didn't happen. That is the part that there is skepticism on.

marcus says

I know that you guys are all about black and white, absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this,"

No. We are all about science and real solutions to real problems, Not scaring children.

marcus says

absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this,"

No-one said this. I would like to see intellectually honest discussion rather than weak attempts to slander skepticism, which is the backbone of scientific process. Anyone who used the phrase "science denier" has no business discussing this topic.

To have a valid hypothesis, a set of predictions MUST match empirical data. So I will ask again, WHAT is the hypothesis and WHAT future empirical evidence determines support for your hypothesis vs disproving your hypothesis? As is, the climate alarmists take whatever empirical data we have and force fit it into their pre-conceived-yet-malleable theory of global coolling/global warming/climate change. The climate change debate has been conducted in a terribly unscientific manner.

CBOEtrader says

No-one said this. I would like to see intellectually honest discussion rather than weak attempts to slander skepticism, which is the backbone of scientific process. Anyone who used the phrase "science denier" has no business discussing this topic.

Amen.

CBOEtrader says

The climate change debate has been conducted in a terribly unscientific manner.

I have tried explaining to the alarmists that I am agnostic. For about a year, on more than one site, I have posed a very simple challenge to convince me. It seems very logical that if there is sea level rise then it should be observable. So I have put a challenge out there to show me in an old picture and a new picture a rise in the high water line on a fixed point. I have also asked if anyone can demonstrate a predicted bad scenario that actually came true. No one has been able to demonstrate either of these two scientific hurdles.

It is time yet again to explain out how Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE (Greenhouse Effect) and 1LT (First Law of Thermodynamics).

First some definitions: By (planet) earth is meant all the physical matter of the planet, including land, water, ice and the atmosphere. Everything.

GE: Greenhouse Effect implies that with increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the earth's balance of energy absorbed from the sun and emitted back to space will change so that more energy is absorbed and less energy is emitted.

1LT: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that deltaU=Q-W, where U is the internal energy (of the earth in this case), Q is the net heat absorption (increases when CO2 is increasing), and W is the work (mechanical work) done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero. Hence deltaU=Q>0. So the internal energy of the earth increases. The increase in internal energy will be observable as an increase in the temperature of earth (although SOME of the energy will partially and/or temporarily take the form of kinetic energy such as wind or potential energy such as water vapor lifted up in the atmosphere, or the potential energy stored in liquid water versus ice, in case anyone wondered).

The net result is that earth temperature will RISE (there it is, global warming) just enough that average outbound heat radiation again balances the average incoming radiation from the sun.The temperature will manifest itself as an AVERAGE increase in air temperature, land temperature, water temperature, and, yes, ice temperature (some of which will cause ice to melt).

The above is high-school level physics and nothing more. That is all there is to it. If you cannot make yourself agree with the above, you are not just a climate change denier, you are a physics denier.

Malcolm says

Except, that it didn't happen

What ? The most extreme prediction (or actually lies about predictions) didn't come true ?

This gets very old. By the way, I"m closer to agnostic on this than you, but I'm capable of taking in the whole picture and dealing with it in a real world in a probabilistic way. You on the other hand, have an agenda. Goes something like this. There's some extremely small chance that the scientific community is wrong, and if they are you can pat yourself on the back and tell everyone how smart you are.

CBOEtrader says

WHAT is the hypothesis and WHAT future empirical evidence determines support for your hypothesis vs disproving your hypothesis?

You're looking for this to match up with you're middle school science class. Science can be done using only past data and observations. Observations of data from the last few decades have everyone convinced that air and ocean temperatures are increasing, in a not very subtle way. The question has to do with the extent to which this is caused by man made pollution.

That's the only question. (becasue if it isn't it's out of our hands, and if it isn't maybe temperatures are going to go right back down). And that can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin if indeed GW is casued by man. You will always be able to say, maybe it's sun spots, or maybe it's some other solar cycle we just don't understand yet.

Perhaps in a totally fucked world 2 centuries from now, the trust fund inheritors of fossil fuel fortunes will still be arguing that we just don't know what caused the earths great catastrophic global warming.

marcus says

Science can be done using only past data and observations.

Totally wrong. Scientists use the past to guess at the future. They use models based on past observations to estimate the future effects of the theory. They then use future empirical data to test the efficacy of their predictions, and thus their theory. Without future predictions compared to future empirical observations, there is no science.

marcus says

And that can't be proven by a method you are referring to

Fine. Then lets admit this is a religion and not science.

marcus says

can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

justme says

Greenhouse Effect implies

justme says

agree with the above

Science doesnt "agree" with implications. Scientific process determines known facts and associated odds of known facts, as well as odds of predictable modeling. Even with known facts, without predictable modeling there is little we can do to effect the outcome. Theories "imply" empirical results. What are the predicted empirical results? What would prove vs disprove your theories?

Everyone understands the concept of GE. The MODELING is where GE gets difficult. HOW MUCH effect does each extra unit of carbon add? Where is the hypothesis, model, prediction and results of the science on this topic? I'm not saying it isnt there. I have never seen a climate change talking head discuss these basic issues though. If you have links to actual scientific tests of GE and the results thereof, please share. I could give you any number of predictions gone awry to show the unscientific talking heads (such as al gore and pretty much all politicians who push for CC agendas).

marcus says

Perhaps in a totally fucked world 2 centuries from now, the trust fund inheritors of fossil fuel fortunes will still be arguing that we just don't know what caused the earths great catastrophic global warming.

Do you find it ironic the fossil fuel billionaires are leading the climate change debate? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rockefeller-family-feud-with-exxon-mobil-fossil-fuels-global-warming-climate-change/ Or perhaps the global elite are using GW as a means to consolidate power.... nah, couldnt be. The world's oligopoly would NEVER use a global panic to solidify power. Never.

CBOEtrader says

marcus says

can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

That was a beauty.

CBOEtrader says

The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.

Indeed, the entire argument of global warming is very similar to Pascal’s wager.
1) Since God, heaven, and hell cant be proven, best to act like God exists and cover your bases, else we risk Hell.
2)Since Global Warming and catastrophic climate change can’t be proven, best to act like it is real else we risk dying in an inferno.

CBOEtrader says

Without future predictions compared to future empirical observations, there is no science.

Yes, I'm sure you got an A on that middle school test about the scientific method. .The truth is, that if someone determines something is true based on past data analysis, it can be deemed true even if if the system so complex that it can't nearly be predicted perfectly going forward.

Is Geology a science ?

Besides, even by your reasoning, you should accept Global Warming. Scientists have predicted for decades that warming is occurring. The future (relative to when they predicted it) has shown them to be correct. Now you're going to change your rules and say it's not enough that they predicted warming and it happened, year after year after year after year after year and decade after decade. According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

When the consensus finally agreed that cigarette smoking causes cancer, were there people saying that if it doesn't cause cancer in everyone, or if you can't say exactly how many cigarettes someone has to smoke in order for them to have cancer, or even how many years they have to smoke to get this result, then it just isn't settled science ?

For more on the scientific method and how it isn't nearly everything you think it is in science.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/whats-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/problems-%E2%80%98-scientific-method%E2%80%99

Also, even when experiments are done to confirm, often the theories are accepted as probably true before they are verified, based simply on the physics and the Math. Example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077087-einsteins-last-theory-confirmed-a-guide-to-gravitational-waves/

marcus says

Is Geology a science ?

Yes. And it proves that the climate has been changing throughout geologic history.
marcus says

According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.

What warming? One degree over a century does not a hockey stick make.

Why can't alarmists accept that their theories and models on co2 caused CAGW have been proven wrong?

The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries. A person in a first world country uses 100x the resources as a person in the third world. If you really were concerned for the environment, stopping illegal immigration into the US and the refugee migrations into Europe would be top order. The first world is already stabilizing the birth rate, and the idea that immigration is needed to counter the "lower fertility" is absurd. The USA was prosperous with a population of 200 million and would still be prosperous if we had a slow decline back to that number.

Most "climate change" proponents would never push for immigration halt. That is because the whole "climate change" push is political and all solutions push some form of vote Democrat. Slowing immigration is thought to mean less Democrat voters, and is thus overlooked as a solution.

HeadSet says

The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries. A person in a first world country uses 100x the resources as a person in the third world.

I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc. Also they reproduce much more. Some 1st world countries have declining populations, many if you subtract 3rd world immigrants.

I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc.

To continually burn forests means you have to let the forests grow back. Compare that to first world water use (showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn, car wash), burning of hydrocarbons (gasoline, electrical generation, heating homes, air travel) and trash generation (unused food, paper, bottles, packaging) and you will see that indeed the ration is 100 to one. Keep in mind that we may not burn forests, but we sure clear a few to keep building homes, strip malls, factories and related sprawl that comes with increasing population.