patrick.net

I used my car's timing belt graph to illustrate Global Warming, and I got a grant because it looked really ugly.

climate science == political science != science

I did a science in my apartment. I try like hell to keep the pH in my fishtank >8.0. One method is to top off the evaporate with lime water. The pH level fluctuates for multiple reasons but one of which is my breathing out CO2. The pictures show the pH in my tank before I traveled for Thanksgiving and when I returned. rd6B informed me the correct term for this is in fact 'acidification' even though it never goes below 7.0 and truly becomes an acid. Pretty interesting...

Tim Aurora says

Also, science is self correcting, in the sense one can give counter claims and correct the hypothesis. So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

You are not listening. let me make it loud and clear, CO2 IS A FERTILIZER ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH NOT A POISON THAT WILL CAUSE THE OCEAN TO BOIL!

Tim Aurora says

water, oxygen but if their levels changed suddenly you have flood and fire.

So what do your sources say will happen if we don't change our ways? Will humanity end in 10 years like the worst predictions of the alarmists? Or are you in the camp that says a couple of degrees warmer by 2100 will cause wet bulb and flooding so bad that Manhattan and Florida will be under water? What is your best and worst case scenarios?

Onvacation says

So what is the current hypothesis of the alarmists? Will the world end in 10 years if we don't stop all co2 production?

I'm not holding my breath for an answer.

Tim Aurora says

it agrees that it does not have explanation for everything

So ya got nothing.

The alarmists' theory as I understand it is that humanity's adding co2 to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect causing the temperature to rise.

The "deniers" point out that the co2 is continuing to increase but the temperature seems to have hit a plateau. They point out that climate change could be much better explained by natural cycles.

This is from the Museum of Natural History in LA.
Seems to indicate that climate change is not needful of humans for it to occur.

Tim Aurora says

At this point the majority (97%) of the experts agree that the climate change is happening due to human activity. That pretty much puts it as a fact

Nope, science does not work on consensus.

Between 1940-1970s, 90%+ of scientists believed cancer was largely or wholly viral. The consensus didn't make it true; science is not a democracy.



One of the greatest disproofs of a theory is when predictions are far, far off from reality down the road. There, "Climatology" has about a 100% failure rate, and it's off by a massive sum.

James Hansen:

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

Tim Aurora says

That pretty much puts it as a fact.

Nope. Not a fact unless it can be replicated though experiment. It’s not even a reputable theory until the facts match up nicely to the projected result.

rd6B says

Tim Aurora says

So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

I think that there are perhaps 100 or 200 people on Earth who can understand arguments for/against global warming competently. I am not one of them, and neither are any other Patnetters from what I can see.

It's not that hard. You don't need to understand everything in the realm of this field, what you need to have is a basic understanding of complex models and how the addition of just one new variable can completely alter it and that the model becomes more and more imprecise the more variables you have in it. That's enough to come to the conclusion that nobody can say with any certainty what the climate will do the next 100, let alone 1000 years and more. If you're into statistics and the power of certainty you can easily derive that none of these models would pass the statistical smell test. It doesn't mean they aren't useful, but they are definitely not useful in predicting the climate over the next decades with even the slightest certainty.

But. I did a science in my apartment. It proves people are bad.

Seriously my coral hates me. I come back from a trip and the Zooxanthellae have been throwing a fucking party.

NoCoupForYou says

One of the greatest disproofs of a theory is when predictions are far, far off from reality down the road.

The problem of denialists is that there are literally tons of - not theoretical but EMPIRICAL - evidence that the earth is warming because of CO2 emitted by humans. There are piles of data supporting this conclusion, coming from many different fields, many different teams, in many different countries.

Even worse: denialists have NO EXPLANATION and NO THEORY WHATSOEVER that fits ANY part of the data.

You hear the morons on the internet change their story literally daily:
- "it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change
- "there is no warming": well melting ice world wide, temp measurements, etc... begs to differ
- "it happened before": well ok, that's fucking meaningless
- "there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.
- "the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

It doesn't make sense for the USA to shut down one of our few coal-powered electric plants when China is creating more than a dozen new ones each year. Working on harnessing nuclear fusion and then carbon capture (once we have the unlimited energy of fusion power) makes more sense than crippling the USA economy to have a miniscule effect on the total world-wide emissions.

No global warming doomsayer has a viable plan.

Hey, maybe Trump is right after all... move manufacturing back to the USA. Then we can insist on low-carbon manufacturing techniques. Saves on transportation too.

Hey, maybe Trump is right after all... halt most immigration to the USA so that our population gradually decreases. We'll be emitting less carbon from that alone. Further, as we decrease energy needs (as a factor of lower population) we can abandon the most-carbon-intensive practices. Less electrical need: shut down the coal-burning plants first and fall back to the less-carbon-intense power plants. Lower population: people can live in moderate-climate areas instead of crowding into Florida (tropics) and Arizona (desert) with high A/C usage.

Heraclitusstudent says

You hear the morons on the internet change their story literally daily:

Yup

Heraclitusstudent says

- "there is no warming

Not much.

Heraclitusstudent says

- "it happened before":

Yup. The climate has changed throughout history and prehistory. Ever hear of the Roman and medieval warming? There was a little ice age. The temperature has risen a degree in a century. One f'in degree and you want to stop modern civilization.

I don't deny the temperature has changed less than 2 degrees in the last century. I don't deny that the warmest temperatures ever recorded on earth were last century. I don't deny that the earth has been cooling for the last few years. I don't deny that the alarmists predictions have been wildly wrong. Do you deny these facts?

Heraclitusstudent says

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Who said that?

Heraclitusstudent says

there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.

This one statement reveals a PROFOUND lack of understanding of climate and weather. Volcanoes cool the earth down, usually a hemisphere at a time due to prevailing winds, and a large volcanic eruption can cause a significant short term effect of a degree or more in average change. This has happened and been measure many many times, and the science is thoroughly understood: sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere blocks a portion of sunlight, cooling the earth.

The fact that you want to preach to us that we don’t understand climate when you don’t even understand one of the basic drivers of immediate climate change is revealing.
Really reinforces the stereotype of people who think their Bachelor of Arts qualifies them as a climate science expert.

Shaman says

The fact that you want to preach to us that we don’t understand climate when you don’t even understand one of the basic drivers of immediate climate change is revealing.

More proof that global warming climate change is more a religion than a science. The green new deal is based on socialism not science.

From Judith Curry

Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.

While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.

While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015."

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

Heraclitusstudent says

"there is no warming": well melting ice world wide, temp measurements, etc... begs to differ

Yes, if anyone says there is no current warming, that person is biased as we do have warming trend currently

Heraclitusstudent says

"it happened before": well ok, that's fucking meaningless

agreed

Heraclitusstudent says

the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

here I vehemently disagree - correlation is not causation, and models DO suck

Tim Aurora says

In one post you accuse of the 97% Scientific community being lax and questioning their past credibility record and on another you accuse them of being a religion

Science isn't a meeting of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Womyn Against Patriarchy group. Consensus has no role in science, only fact and justifiable conclusions.

The fact (not my opinion) that a huge quantity of data used in climate models are unquantifiable ex rectum placeholders makes the modelling unscientific, little more than a thinking tool. The fact that modellers like Michael Mann fiercely resist publishing their assumptions and datasets to be reviewed and criticized only amplifies that opinion.

We've already provided examples of scientific consensus that turned out to be false in this very thread, such as the belief, that lasted for two generations, that Cancer had a viral origin. Another one would be that schizophrenia was caused by "Bad Family Dynamics", another totally exploded consensus belief.

Any abstract concept that has a well-developed Eskatonic attitude, complete with punishment of sin against the Deity (Earth), resembles more religion than Science.

rd6B says

Yes, if anyone says there is no current warming, that person is biased as we do have warming trend currently

The temp peaked in 2016 which was warmer than 2015 by .04 degrees. 2017 and 2018 were colder than 2016 and 2019 looks to be colder still. If there is a trend it is stable or cooling.

If you want to call it a warming trend, ok. But the alarmists predicted multiple degrees hotter by now and the whole premise of global warming is based on a flawed theory that manmade greenhouse gas, mainly co2, would cause catastrophic warming, melting of the poles, and the death and misery of millions.

Ice-free Poles don't mean shit for life on Earth, we know this for a fact. In fact if Antarctica and Greenland melt and huge swaths of Siberia and Canada get warmer, we'll see an explosion of plant and animal life.

We had some of the largest land animals and plant life, mile-long giant clam colonies, etc. in Earth History when there was no polar ice for hundreds of millions of year, as well as CO2 levels in excess of 1500ppm.

Onvacation says

The temp peaked in 2016 which was warmer than 2015 by .04 degrees. 2017 and 2018 were colder than 2016 and 2019 looks to be colder still. If there is a trend it is stable or cooling.

That is somewhat inconsequential, as overall trend is warming. There will always be a year or few breaking the trend.

Onvacation says

But the alarmists predicted multiple degrees hotter by now

Yes, and that shows their models are not correct, and that we do not have computational power yet to have reliable models. It also shows that if you cry wolf, political decision will be made to fund your research, which selects for scientists crying wolf

Tim Aurora says

Onvacation, I am not sure what are you arguing

Is it not obvious that I am arguing that global warming is a scam?

Tim Aurora says

. In one post you accuse of the 97% Scientific community being lax and questioning their past credibility record and on another you accuse them of being a religion

It's not the scientists. It's the politicians and media who have scared our ignorant children into BELIEVING that the end is near because our modern lifestyle is killing the planet. Facts be damned, previous predictions ignored, the alarmists have proclaimed the end is a decade away, for decades.

Tim Aurora says

But it is not just you but the entire deniers who are just throwing arguments and looking for something to stick.

Why not call us heretics?

Do you deny that co2 has gone way up but temperature has not?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

- "there is no warming

Not much.

Not yet...

Shaman says

Heraclitusstudent says

there is warming but it's the volcanoes": yeah well... we know how much C we burn, and we know how much its presence in the atmosphere is increasing. It doesn't take much to out 2 and 2 together.

This one statement reveals a PROFOUND lack of understanding of climate and weather. Volcanoes cool the earth down, usually a hemisphere at a time due to prevailing winds, and a large volcanic eruption can cause a significant short term effect of a degree or more in average change.

Are volcanoes cooling the earth down now? Nope. So what are we talking about?
I'm talking about the nuts that claim the CO2 increase we OBSERVE comes from volcanoes. It doesn't. Period.

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

NAH.... MUST BE A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY OF LEFTISTS TO PREVENT ME FROM DRIVING MY F SUV.
IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Who said that?

You:
Onvacation says

Is it not obvious that I am arguing that global warming is a scam?

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C for centuries without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Heraclitusstudent says

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Definitely a valid question, but we're def not there yet IMO and it looks like warming has slowed as we haven't made any new records in the last 2 years and 2019 is likely going to end even cooler again.

rd6B says

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed.

rd6B says

Heraclitusstudent says

the models suck and can't predict anything": Ok... so what about what we observe and measure right now?

here I vehemently disagree - correlation is not causation, and models DO suck

Really?
- can we agree humans emit CO2?
- can we agree there is more CO2 now in the atmosphere than 50 yrs ago? - observed
- can we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? - observed in laboratories
- can we agree that we see more reflected heat from the atmosphere in the frequency where we expect this due to CO2? - observed
- can we calculate the extra heat that will not radiate in space at the scale of earth? - calculated
- can we observe extra heat in fact being present? - observed
When you know the exact mechanism, and you observe EVERY STEP of the mechanism in fact happening, doesn't claiming "correlation is not causation" become UTTER BS?

Heraclitusstudent says

Heraclitusstudent says

"it's the sun": well of course we measure the sun and the didn't change

it does change

We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed.

As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

Heraclitusstudent says

- can we agree humans emit CO2?
- can we agree there is more CO2 now in the atmosphere than 50 yrs ago? - observed
- can we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? - observed in laboratories
- can we agree that we see more reflected heat from the atmosphere in the frequency where we expect this due to CO2? - observed
- can we calculate the extra heat that will not radiate in space at the scale of earth? - calculated
- can we observe extra heat in fact being present? - observed
When you know the exact mechanism, and you observe EVERY STEP of the mechanism in fact happening, doesn't claiming "correlation is not causation" become UTTER BS?

1. Please explain if more CO2 in atmosphere causes positive or negative warming feedback loops. I can't answer that personally.
2. Please explain why world has not warmed nearly as much as predicted in the past - this is also a fact. We were supposed to lose nearly all Artic ice etc by now. That I can answer - models suck and I have no doubt that current ones do also

mell says

That's not true. As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

There is no maunder minimum, or larger variations happening now.
We also know for a fact for example that polar regions that DO NOT SEE THE SUN FOR 6 MONTHS A YEAR are the places that see the most warming. This is totally consistent with greenhouse effect and totally INCONSISTENT with a variation in sun intensity.

So I'll repeat again:
We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed NOW.