patrick.net

marcus says

There's one type of person that cares about the future

And they're really concerned that their carbon credits will be worthless if the scam is exposed.

marcus says

the worst of it won't affect them personally.

I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.

When will the consequences of CAGW start?

curious2 says

Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

Thank you. Maybe I should refer to it as "The Fraud".

Onvacation says

I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.

No, that was never the mainstream belief. Iwog got a little extreme , but only talking about if the trend continued, it was a speculative possibility he mentioned, based on the bizzarre trends in the arctic in 2015/2016.(NOTE: It's the coming down from that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend).

THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

http://patrick.net/post/1316363?offset=0#comment-1509438

YOu're arguments are such trolls that I can't help but wonder whether the Koch brothers pay you for such nonsense. Or perhaps we have the honor of having an actual Koch brother on this forum (unlikely) >

Onvacation says

No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.

We're not even in the same argument. All along I've been responding to your claim that citing average annual global temperatures down to hundredths of a degree doesn't make sense. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.

Onvacation says

That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.

No, it was curious. I was pointing out how he completely misunderstands how to interpret the data.

curious2 says

Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change

And, fyi, the scientific community is more appropriately referring to it as climate change because the effects are more than just higher temps.

But there's no doubt that temps are rising. It can be seen in so many different measurements: temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc.

marcus says

 

Onvacation says

I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.

No, that was never the mainstream belief.

If catastrophe is not the alarmist belief what is?

marcus says

that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)

What? And I am not talking about the typo.

marcus says

THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

So, is the hockey stick gonna happen or not? When?
Skeptics want to know.

marcus says

. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.

Many people are ignorant of the fact that the alarmist manipulate temperature data.

LeonDurham says

temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc

I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.

curious2 says

Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

On second thought, CAGW is an appropriate name.

Onvacation says

I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.

It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.

@Patrick--

My post isn't appearing. what's up?

LeonDurham says

Onvacation says

I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.

It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.

Obfuscation it is.LeonDurham says

My post isn't appearing. what's up?

Maybe the numbers are too small?

Onvacation says

Obfuscation it is

OK--how many times does it need to get posted?

Look, here are the facts:

1. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising and have been rising for decades.
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.
3. Global temperature has risen over the last 50 years. This is shown by temperature readings, bird migration patterns, seal level measurements, ice pack measurements, snow pack melting data, et. al.
4. The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

LeonDurham says

The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

Just preserving this...

curious2 says

Just preserving this...

It's a keeper.

LeonDurham says

2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.

Sonce it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

LeonDurham says

But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.

LeonDurham says

OK--how many times does it need to get posted?

At least once. Probably more.

CBOEtrader says

once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

I said the mechanism is well understood. Please pay attention. Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem which is what I addressed in my last point.

CBOEtrader says

This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering. I simply stated the obvious--that the consequences of global warming are potentially dire, even if one thinks the probability of said consequences occurring are small.

CBOEtrader says

At least once. Probably more.

Then we should be good. It's been posted at least a half dozen times.

LeonDurham says

I said the mechanism is well understood.

LeonDurham says

Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem

You can't have it both ways.LeonDurham says

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.

LeonDurham says

the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,

If the models are correct, ...

Onvacation says

You can't have it both ways

Of course you can. The mechanism by which CO2 causes the Earth to warm up is well understood. How this extra warming input affects the multitude of other variables in the Earth's ecosystem is not as well understood. Are there other systems in play that dampen the warming input, eg the heat sinks of the oceans? But, when the oceans reach a certain temp will it affect jet streams and cause rapid heating? Much of that is difficult to model. But it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well understood.

Onvacation says

If the models are correct, ...

No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct.

LeonDurham says

No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct

I thought the science was settled.

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.

I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Just preserving this, too...

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...

Just curious--why would you feel the need to preserve that?

LeonDurham says

Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere.

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Whoops...

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

CO2 is needed for plant growth. Not sure if it's really true that the more the better, but regardless, you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Quigley says

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Whoops.

No whoops at all. Models are a tool that should be utilized and understood.

LeonDurham says

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

Just preserving this, too...

LeonDurham says

you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.

Rebutting my argument with a mere statement suggesting that a scientific proof exists without either giving the proof or linking to it is meaningless. Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...

Awfully trollish on this thread.

If you have a point, please make it.

Quigley says

Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance

I'll assume that your burden of proof is ridiculously high as such literature exists and is quite easy to find. I can post many links if you're truly interested.

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven.

Quigley says

he fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.

Are you serious ? I especially liked this part.

Quigley says

Rebutting my argument with a mere statement

No offense, but what you seem to think are arguments on your part are nothing more than statements.

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

As for your statement that any effects of increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere other than benefits to plants are nothing more than theories is grossly misleading but also it doesn't make it unscientific. In the past there a have been many theories that were accepted by scientific communities based on analysis and Math, before they were proven true with empirical evidence. Something being theoretical doesn't mean that it's not true enough to act on. Besides there have been experiments which support the theoretical in this case.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html

curious2 says

LeonDurham says

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

Just preserving this, too...

Yes, this one is a real beaut.

LeonDurham says

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.

I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.

You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

(Did I virtue signal properly. Sorry, new at this.)

marcus says

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

Yup models are just tools. It's the politicians, leftwing fundamentalists, and journalists who are unscientific.

Let's try this cause/effect thought exercise.

Cause: we give $$trillions to an international beaurocracy, who will...

Effect: totes save us from our own sins.

(Ya know cause beaurocracies ALWAYS save the day and benefit the working class. Always)

If you question any word of the above, you are a science denier.

CBOEtrader says

You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

Nope--science deniers are the folks who claim the greenhouse effect (discovered in the mid 1800s) is a myth. Or that there is no evidence of temperature rising. Denying facts.