patrick.net

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.

HeadSet says

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.

I'm skeptical wrt 100:1 but either way we are nations of consumers and wasters, so we should continue making progress. Although the landfills have been steadily receding, so I think waste has gone down. Eventually though it is a population problem and as mentioned most western nations are only growing due to 3rd world immigration. Def. slowing immigration will help. Unused food is indeed a great embarrassment but you know well that - due to stupid policies - many people and more-so businesses are forced to throw the tons of unused food we generate everyday away because that one homeless person getting sick from spoilage will sue the business out of existence. Nevermind that the chances of spoiled food from an individual or business are far less than those from a thrash-can.

marcus says

The future (relative to when they predicted it) has shown them to be correct.

Source?

Hypothesis: "the earth will warm because Americans are farting more"

Does the earth warming prove americans are farting more?

To show actual evidence of a valid theory, the modeling and results would need to match empirical evidence. Without proper modeling even a valid concept is useless.

marcus says

Now you're going to change your rules

I never established rules or a hypothesis. I am merely skeptical of the movement w good reasons. It is your job, or the job if anyone who wants to suggest global warming initiatives are required to prove the initiatives are worth the cost.

Do you believe that Africans shouldn't have AC for example? How about cars? How about 2500 sqft homes? Should poor people worldwide pay an extra gas tax that an international bureaucracy wastes?

The massive cost of the global warming initiatives require solid evidence which I have yet to see.

Given the unscientific narrative, this looks like a pure power grab. Leaving the Paris accord looks like a great decision.

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.

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

You are purposely ignoring nuance.

The global warming debate is specifically about the MODELING of the results. It's the model we question. No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect. The question is HOW MUCH? The decisions to fix the problem are all based ON HOW MUCH is man made vs natural fluctuations. It's not a yes or no question. It's a question of degree. (Literally and figuratively.)

So yes, if no scientist can show a model that is at least passably accurate, then they shouldn't be suggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives. This type of haphazard science will hurt far more than it will help.

CBOEtrader says

No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect.

The question about co2 is what kind of effect?
Co2 is a trace "greenhouse" gas that with all the other greenhouse gases stops some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space.CBOEtrader says

The question is HOW MUCH?

As far as keeping heat in, co2 has not shown much effect when comparing the small temperature rise versus the predicted spike. Co2 has doubled while temperature has changed very little.

Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.

Onvacation says

Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.

Not to mention, while CO2 does have insulating properties, there are other "greenhouse" gases that theoretically are 10x times as green housy as CO2. Other than wanting to attack modern civilization, I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.

The Feedback mechanisms are poorly understood. More evap=more cloud cover+more rock erosion=more sunlight reflected back into space and more carbon sequestering.

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.

Agree in principle, but I think the goal should be achieving a slight negative global population growth.

What's the point of decreasing the average environmental footprint by a half if population growth doubles every 7 years or so. No green agenda can win against population growth. Limiting population growth should be THE green agenda. Seems like it should be an easy Right/Left collaboration.

The problem is what policies are introduced to this effect. China's one child policy was a failure. How about a two child policy, where the third child draws tax liabilities?

Malcolm says

Other than wanting to attack modern civilization

Control modern civilization.

Onvacation says

The question about co2 is what kind of effect?
Co2 is a trace "greenhouse" gas that with all the other greenhouse gases stops some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space.

Yes, that pesky trace gas CO2 is the one causing the planet to overheat... Please don't look at the water vapor.... SQUIRREL !!!

Sure, we'll believe that...

Sniper says

SQUIRREL

Somebody has been hangin out with dogs too much.

Malcolm says

I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.

They hate cars.

just_passing_through says

They hate cars.

They hate other people’s carsand how they slow them down on their way into work.

CBOEtrader says

uggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives

That's a little extreme. But you have to realize that investing a lot of money in 4th or 5th generation nuclear, possibly thorium, or other cutting edge and fairly efficient forms of enerrgy, and giving the fossil fuels a rest, is probably good for humanity regardless of the impact on AGW. Why wouldn't we do it when money is cheap ? (interest rates that is) But it does deny certain big interests some of their near and medium term profits. THat's really the only issue here. It's no big financial risk to put pressure bringing other energy sources online. Aren't we going to need it for electric cars anyway ?

Wtf is going on ??


marcus says

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 ?

yeah, I know quoting myself is kind of lame. But I don't have much else to say to CBOE other than that.

CBOEtrader says

The global warming debate is specifically about the MODELING of the results. It's the model we question. No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect. The question is HOW MUCH? The decisions to fix the problem are all based ON HOW MUCH is man made vs natural fluctuations. It's not a yes or no question. It's a question of degree. (Literally and figuratively.)

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control? At the least would be the eliminating 100+ years of fossil fuel industry written self serving policies/regulations and the elimination of outright subsidies of fossil fuels would be reasonable. Don't worry though, there is no danger of that as long as the republican party is simply a front for big corporate money.

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?

This still gets back to population. If you really think the problem "will spiral out of control" you should be seriously banging the drum on sustainable humanity. That is, keeping the numbers in check by stopping 3rd world immigration and eliminating welfare and tax policies that pay people to breed. Less people will need less resources, and the lower energy consumption would allow solar, wind, nuke, geothermal and other renewables to actually produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels.

The emphasis on "carbon" is just an excuse for political control. i can sum up the "carbon" debate like this - "Climate change is real and we must vote Democrat to keep the fossil fuel industry in line." Also, let's have a new tax in the form of "Carbon Credits." Trading Carbon Credits not only provide a new tax source, but give the added bonus of a new profit source for Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street Democrat donors.

Note also that burning fossil fuels produces water vapor, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. You never hear about a "Hydro Footprint" since that would sound silly to the general public, who would then laugh off attempts at control.

HEYYOU says

last April happened to be the third-warmest April ever recorded globally, according to the NOAA report released Thursday. Carbon dioxide levels also hit another milestone by reaching the “highest level in recorded history at 410 parts per million” last month"

If the co2 is at an all time high why is the temperature cooling?

bob2356 says

What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?

Move up the hill.

It looks like one cannot say 'If you are not smart enough to understand 2+2=4, then you should go back to school or stop trying to understand math.' One could see such a comment as a personal attack. Or, you could see it as just stating the obvious. Apparently, stating the obvious truth is too personal for some people. We will have to go along believing that 2+2=nobody knows. Otherwise, oh no - FEELINGS.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

FEELINGS

Feelings are what the whole CAGW fraud is about. Remember the drowning polar bears? When is Manhattan and Florida going under water? How much has the temperature risen? What is the ideal temperature for human life? Can they really measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree?

These are questions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.

Onvacation says

These are qiestions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.

I'm still waiting for a picture actually showing even the slightest change in sea level somewhere. None of these arm chair scientists have ever been able to produce one.

I remember a duck that predicted all the arctic ice would melt. He ended up ignoring me as the facts got in the way of his pontificating.

There was this other guy from Florida who wanted the fossil fuel companies to pay, but was unwilling to give up his custom red sports volva.

And then the most famous alarmist, Al Gore, wants you to give up modern existence while his carbon footprint is hundreds of times bigger than the average. Al says it's OK because he has carbon credits that neutralize his extravagance. If you feel guilty about producing too much co2 Al will sell you some carbon credits, or you can limit co2 by holding your breath.

It's hard for an individual to give up on idea that they have been brainwashed into. They typically turn to personal attack when the facts are against them.

2016 was "THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER". It was 4/100ths of a degree hotter than 2015.
Onvacation says

Can they really measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree?

It just seems ridiculous to talk about a worldwide average temperature that can be measured down to hundredths of a degree.