Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 901 to 1,000 of 1000

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #901
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    So you've posted now about how inaccurate the data is, and now you're complaining that it's too accurate. Which is it?
    Rather telling that after more than 300 posts the best possible case against global warming that he can come up with is to present data which unequivocally show... global warming.
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    Because sites like this may have limited users who actually engage in discussions, but there are plenty of lurkers and people who will stumble upon these threads (through google searches of whatever). If people come to this site, and only see the misinformation posted without rebuttal it can create a narrative that these things are agreed upon by the community and correct, and create a sense of credibility by the lack of information challenging it. Posting facts and arguments against the misinformation ensures that there is the information within this thread itself to disprove what is being posted. I'm sure most people posting in here would prefer not to have to spend the time rebutting MrCombust but the posts are not for him, he's not going to change his mind. They're for anyone else reading his thread.

  2. #902
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    Which is fine if there's an actual debate occurring but that not is not the case here. The thread right now is dominated by a sock puppet playing an unending looping game of gish gallup. For myself on this topic there are many other forums to have these discussions on where everyone is not just spinning their wheels.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  3. #903

    Default

    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    2018-01-19 by me
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  4. #904

    Default The TRUTH. As promised, here's a recent paper on solar variability affecting climate...

    Essentially this paper suggests a significant amount of the current warming is due to solar activity, and not CO2.
    “After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance.” The author estimates “that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects.”

    Of course there are many such papers on the effects of solar activity. Some estimate the variability as very small, some (like this one), attribute more significance to the sun.

    "On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures

    Abstract

    By combining Solar Cycle Lengths (SCL) and CO2 this paper predicts a global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly of 1.5K in the year 2100 compared to 0.42K in 1996–2006. This assumes a continuing CO2 increase of 2 ppm per year and our derived form of Transient Climate Response (TCR), whose value 1.93 ± 0.26 K (K) per CO2 doubling would be 1.23 times higher if the Sun were ignored. After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance. It also estimates that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects. We then compare with models created from Scafetta (2010, 2013) (the first of which has the best fit of all) and from radiative forcings estimated by Myhre et al. (2001) and Skeie et al. (2011). The latter confirms the solar contribution to 1980–2001 warming as 33%, in contrast to the negligible value given by Benestad & Schmidt (2009). It also gives a TCR of 1.3K if only CO2 continues to rise, and 2.0K if CH4 and NO2 also rise proportionately. Likewise this model estimates the ratio between the sensitivities of forcings from the Sun and greenhouse gases as 2.9 (versus 1.0 for Benestad & Schmidt (2009)). We develop a negative exponential model for post-forced warming to derive a ratio between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and TCR, estimated to be 1.15. Two statistical novelties of the paper are the computation of the exact left tail probability of the Durbin-Watson statistic, and the demonstration of an approximate relationship between the Akaike Information Criterion and the tail probability of the F-statistic."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682616303479
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #905

    Default

    Now wait for people to say the sun is pumping out more heat because of global warming... Note that I'm not denying global warming, but the hardcores say such silly things.

    Another thing to consider is the amount of artificial materials covering the ground that increase reflected heat.

    Imagine a hot day, strong sun. Stand in the grass in your backyard barefoot and bend over. Fine. The grass is cool on your feet. Now go stand on a black paved driveway and bend over. Your feet are burning and you can feel the heat coming up on your face. Sometimes you can't even stand it barefoot, even on beach sand.

    Now picture large cities like New York and many others that are all pavement and concrete whether it be streets, sidewalks, rooftops etc. All that heat coming off of large cities all over the world must also contribute to not only global temperature rises, but also exaggerated temperature readings taken within cities. A thermometer in your backyard will definitely read cooler temperatures that one over your hot driveway, even if it's a 0.1 or 1 degree difference. Taking readings near a heat source is not a true reading of atmospheric temperature.

  6. #906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Now wait for people to say the sun is pumping out more heat because of global warming... Note that I'm not denying global warming, but the hardcores say such silly things.

    Another thing to consider is the amount of artificial materials covering the ground that increase reflected heat.

    Imagine a hot day, strong sun. Stand in the grass in your backyard barefoot and bend over. Fine. The grass is cool on your feet. Now go stand on a black paved driveway and bend over. Your feet are burning and you can feel the heat coming up on your face. Sometimes you can't even stand it barefoot, even on beach sand.

    Now picture large cities like New York and many others that are all pavement and concrete whether it be streets, sidewalks, rooftops etc. All that heat coming off of large cities all over the world must also contribute to not only global temperature rises, but also exaggerated temperature readings taken within cities. A thermometer in your backyard will definitely read cooler temperatures that one over your hot driveway, even if it's a 0.1 or 1 degree difference. Taking readings near a heat source is not a true reading of atmospheric temperature.
    Of course. I've posted a number of articles on this. My fav is post 814. You should look at that one. Climate advocates LOVE the land based record becuase it has what they want. A large and recent warming trend that correlates with CO2. They think this artificial correlation is overwhelming proof. Never mind all the othe data sets without that trend.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-08-2018 at 11:21 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    All that heat coming off of large cities all over the world must also contribute to not only global temperature rises, but also exaggerated temperature readings taken within cities. A thermometer in your backyard will definitely read cooler temperatures that one over your hot driveway, even if it's a 0.1 or 1 degree difference. Taking readings near a heat source is not a true reading of atmospheric temperature.
    Yes, you have a point, kind of, and it's already been well discussed on this thread. However, the point about your point is that these types of locations in urban environments are also showing the same warming trends as readings from areas that are in rural / non-developed areas, where there isn't roads, streets, buildings, near heat sources.

  8. #908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    here....

    .

    and here...…..

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    ...
    Please provide the installation dates associated with each photo.

    You conclude that their locations are chosen to increase the temperature record so you must have the dates available to you. Equipment would have been updated over the years but the locations could go back to the 1970s and so that would predate any great conspiracy to choose distorting locations. (I can’t imagine A/C installers would wish to locate their equipment to upwardly bias the data. Well, on the other hand maybe I’m wrong and maybe the A/C industry could actually want to conspire to get people to perceive rising temperatures. It might bring forward sales. Hmmmmm... sorry, I mean hummmm.


    I would imagine weather stations at airports have always been near tarmac, leaky hanger buildings, etc. Older hangers being leakier would have raised surrounding temperatures more. The heat island effect of an A/C unit would only be a few metres and would depend on wind direct but the effect would be towards an upward bias if it had an effect. The effect of tarmac would be quite vast.

    Similarly North America cities have increased physical mass and energy consumption and so related heat dissipation could have increased. This would be offset through dramatically increase in the cooling effect of the maturing forest canopy. Reductions in diesel and other particulates would be providing less heat absorbing material. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.

    ..

  9. #909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    All that heat coming off of large cities all over the world must also contribute to not only global temperature rises, but also exaggerated temperature readings taken within cities. A thermometer in your backyard will definitely read cooler temperatures that one over your hot driveway, even if it's a 0.1 or 1 degree difference. Taking readings near a heat source is not a true reading of atmospheric temperature.
    Yes, you have a point, kind of, and it's already been well discussed on this thread. However, the point about your point is that these types of locations in urban environments are also showing the same warming trends as readings from areas that are in rural / non-developed areas, where there isn't roads, streets, buildings, near heat sources.
    I think I need more evidence than you saying the station doesn't record the heat. Everybody knows concrete gets very hot. Of course a precision scientific instrument in the station would record that heat. It's preposterous the station wouldn't detect heat from the concrete.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #910

    Default

    Its almost like you don't read what wrote.... and just filling it with what you think I've wrote....

    The heat sources remains unchanged year after year... but the temperature keeps rising....

  11. #911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Kcantor pretty much nailed it here.

  12. #912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Kcantor pretty much nailed it here.
    Made up argument. No data to support it. And its wrong. The baseline is a grass field where most stations started out before a city grew around them

    This is why I dont respond to advocate arguments. Kcantor just makes stuff up. And you post caetoon graphs drawn by a comedian.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-08-2018 at 03:26 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Essentially this paper suggests a significant amount of the current warming is due to solar activity, and not CO2.
    “After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance.” The author estimates “that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects.”

    Of course there are many such papers on the effects of solar activity. Some estimate the variability as very small, some (like this one), attribute more significance to the sun.

    "On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures

    Abstract

    By combining Solar Cycle Lengths (SCL) and CO2 this paper predicts a global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly of 1.5K in the year 2100 compared to 0.42K in 1996–2006. This assumes a continuing CO2 increase of 2 ppm per year and our derived form of Transient Climate Response (TCR), whose value 1.93 ± 0.26 K (K) per CO2 doubling would be 1.23 times higher if the Sun were ignored. After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance. It also estimates that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects. We then compare with models created from Scafetta (2010, 2013) (the first of which has the best fit of all) and from radiative forcings estimated by Myhre et al. (2001) and Skeie et al. (2011). The latter confirms the solar contribution to 1980–2001 warming as 33%, in contrast to the negligible value given by Benestad & Schmidt (2009). It also gives a TCR of 1.3K if only CO2 continues to rise, and 2.0K if CH4 and NO2 also rise proportionately. Likewise this model estimates the ratio between the sensitivities of forcings from the Sun and greenhouse gases as 2.9 (versus 1.0 for Benestad & Schmidt (2009)). We develop a negative exponential model for post-forced warming to derive a ratio between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and TCR, estimated to be 1.15. Two statistical novelties of the paper are the computation of the exact left tail probability of the Durbin-Watson statistic, and the demonstration of an approximate relationship between the Akaike Information Criterion and the tail probability of the F-statistic."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682616303479
    Did you actually read this paper? The "model" is basically a curve-fitting exercise with no consideration given to the actual physical properties of the underlying system (i.e., climate). As such its predictive utility is highly questionable.

  14. #914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Kcantor pretty much nailed it here.
    Made up argument. No data to support it. And its wrong. The baseline is a grass field where most stations started out before a city grew around them

    This is why I dont respond to advocate arguments. Kcantor just makes stuff up. And you post caetoon graphs drawn by a comedian.
    Make stuff up? Really?
    I've posted a lot more than that and so has kcantor but you ignore anything with actual facts... and dismiss reputable scientists in favour of random internet bloggers like yourself with no educational background in these fields. Somehow I'm suppose to believe you over what the real world is telling?

    You seem quite quick to dismiss anything that proves that your absolutely wrong, and you continue to double down on circular logic, and slippery slope arguments, and fear mongering / half-baked conspiracies stories...

  15. #915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Our future should we let CO2 use continue to 'spiral' out of control

    Predictions of the future based on well-established and well-proven/reliable/accurate facts from today.

    hard to ignore this..

  16. #916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Kcantor pretty much nailed it here.
    Made up argument. No data to support it. And its wrong. The baseline is a grass field where most stations started out before a city grew around them

    This is why I dont respond to advocate arguments. Kcantor just makes stuff up. And you post caetoon graphs drawn by a comedian.
    That is not correct. There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites. For example:

    Source: https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581...4581-1-104.pdf

  17. #917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Why is there oil in the arctic?

    Oil in the arctic comes from the extensive, and abundance of life that once was.

    For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise.

    Now we live in a frozen world. During short inter glacial periods, the ice melts and Toronto is NOT covered in 1km of ice.

    The earth is getting colder. In a geological time frame it will soon be a frozen ball.

    Maybe CO2 will slow the process. The advocates of "climate change" don't want that.
    “For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. “

    I’d say not the North Pole.

    But many would agree that Torontoians can be very cold people.



    Now you’ve got me curious as to when the arctic arrived in the north.
    I didn't want to play this whacamole game because theres no point but you might want to put Continental Drift, Pangaea, Polar wandering etc on your required reading list.

    That was directed at McCombust.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #918
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^
    if you’re measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesn’t matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    Kcantor pretty much nailed it here.
    Made up argument. No data to support it. And its wrong. The baseline is a grass field where most stations started out before a city grew around them

    This is why I dont respond to advocate arguments. Kcantor just makes stuff up. And you post caetoon graphs drawn by a comedian.
    right... i just make stuff up.

    like ignoring your contention that the van nuys airport just recently sprang up out of a grass field and started distorting the historical record weather data at that location as a result enabling you to pretend you have some grounds to ignore that data.

    for the record, the van nuys airport has been there since 1928 when it first opened as the metropolitan airport. the us government took it over following the attack on pearl harbor and converted it to a full fledged base, expanding runways and training hundreds of p-38 lightning pilots. it was also a major manufacturing facility instrumental in developing and testing the p-80 (america's first fighter jet).

    if anything, the van nuys airport location is one of the few weather stations where surrounding conditions have actually been pretty constant for almost a century now.

    as for your supposed concern that this weather station - just like all weather stations - records surrounding heat, isn't that exactly what weather stations are supposed to record?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Essentially this paper suggests a significant amount of the current warming is due to solar activity, and not CO2.
    “After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance.” The author estimates “that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects.”

    Of course there are many such papers on the effects of solar activity. Some estimate the variability as very small, some (like this one), attribute more significance to the sun.

    "On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures

    Abstract

    By combining Solar Cycle Lengths (SCL) and CO2 this paper predicts a global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly of 1.5K in the year 2100 compared to 0.42K in 1996–2006. This assumes a continuing CO2 increase of 2 ppm per year and our derived form of Transient Climate Response (TCR), whose value 1.93 ± 0.26 K (K) per CO2 doubling would be 1.23 times higher if the Sun were ignored. After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance. It also estimates that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects. We then compare with models created from Scafetta (2010, 2013) (the first of which has the best fit of all) and from radiative forcings estimated by Myhre et al. (2001) and Skeie et al. (2011). The latter confirms the solar contribution to 1980–2001 warming as 33%, in contrast to the negligible value given by Benestad & Schmidt (2009). It also gives a TCR of 1.3K if only CO2 continues to rise, and 2.0K if CH4 and NO2 also rise proportionately. Likewise this model estimates the ratio between the sensitivities of forcings from the Sun and greenhouse gases as 2.9 (versus 1.0 for Benestad & Schmidt (2009)). We develop a negative exponential model for post-forced warming to derive a ratio between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and TCR, estimated to be 1.15. Two statistical novelties of the paper are the computation of the exact left tail probability of the Durbin-Watson statistic, and the demonstration of an approximate relationship between the Akaike Information Criterion and the tail probability of the F-statistic."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682616303479
    Did you actually read this paper? The "model" is basically a curve-fitting exercise with no consideration given to the actual physical properties of the underlying system (i.e., climate). As such its predictive utility is highly questionable.
    No, I didn't read it. I think papers like this are ridiculous. The climate system is a complex, chaotic, unstable system. I don't believe you can attribute warming or cooling to any one thing, including CO2. And I have no doubt there are sun cycles affecting the climate that we do not know about. I post this so Edmontonians and Albertans know there's more to the climate debate than CO2. Does this graph look like the climate is controlled by CO2, or anything else?

    CO2 is the flat green line in the middle.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-08-2018 at 06:06 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    if anything, the van nuys airport location is one of the few weather stations where surrounding conditions have actually been pretty constant for almost a century now.
    Too funny.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  21. #921

    Default

    [QUOTE=Medwards;899540]
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Our future should we let CO2 use continue to 'spiral'

    Predictions of the future based on well-established and well-proven/reliable/accurate facts from today.

    hard to ignore this..
    On the contrary. Quite easy to ignore cartoon graphs and predictions made by software simulations that have already failed. Your claim that these are "accurate facts" are nonsense.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #922
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    if anything, the van nuys airport location is one of the few weather stations where surrounding conditions have actually been pretty constant for almost a century now.
    Too funny.

    too funny is right... you do know pearl harbor didn't take place until almost two years after that photo?

    but that's okay... keep editing and truncating posts the same way you edit and truncate data to try and prove your point.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  23. #923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    Because sites like this may have limited users who actually engage in discussions, but there are plenty of lurkers and people who will stumble upon these threads (through google searches of whatever). If people come to this site, and only see the misinformation posted without rebuttal it can create a narrative that these things are agreed upon by the community and correct, and create a sense of credibility by the lack of information challenging it. Posting facts and arguments against the misinformation ensures that there is the information within this thread itself to disprove what is being posted. I'm sure most people posting in here would prefer not to have to spend the time rebutting MrCombust but the posts are not for him, he's not going to change his mind. They're for anyone else reading his thread.
    Once again thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do feel that if somebody stumbles upon this thread what they will witness instead of adroit discussion is poor assertions and in some instances poor rebuttals. So that MrCombust is not even being effectively rebutted. So that INSTEAD of offering the view that C2E doesn't support such discussion these threads and the Trump threads are showing that more and more this is what C2E is about. Endless OT banter and argument.

    Heres one of the real risks in a thread like this and the reason its endless. Its that climate change is being debated here by those that would not be able to critically refute the actual mathematical or scientific or theoretical constructs involved. Instead it devolves into endless citation of one view or the another with nothing ever settled. Essentially, because nobody here is an expert at climate change and that everybody present would be deferring automatically to one view or another. So that it becomes just another endless argument.


    I will say that some of the rebuttals in this thread are worse informed than even some of MrCombusts assertions. Some of them are on this very page.


    Climate change is the most complicated phenomenon and issue facing Humans. Even though I am post graduate, with some advanced coursework in Biology, Ecology, and select courses in which I had the benefit of a fantastic Unesco scholar as professor, I do not feel remotely capable of engaging this discussion in an informed way even though I have read countless books and texts on the subject. But I look at the replies here and its very evident people are just going primarily on what they are linking online. Which isn't scratching the surface of understanding or comprehension.

    As Paul mentioned everyone is spinning their wheels here, I agree, just as if it were a thread on subatomic particle physics.

    The only thing this thread really indicates is a willingness for all engaged to argue well beyond their scope and purview. Which we all do on occasion but usually with some grounding or bearing or background on the subject at hand. I'm not detecting anybody in this thread that is able to have a qualified discussion on climate change or global warming. So that effective refutation is not really at hand here.

    There doesn't even exist in this thread a concept that Global warming mechanisms are so complex that not everything is fully understood yet. Which isn't preventing people from arguing anyway that the Science is irrevocably substantiated on the subject.


    MrCombust has positioned this as a troll thread. He's willingly engaged in several easily established fallacies. Apparently for the purpose of eliciting replies. But the replies are in many cases equally misinformed. The saddest thing about this thread is that MrCombusts assertions, poor as some of them are, (not all) would be more effectively exposed if they were met with little response. As several of them lack the credibility to even warrant response. So that responding actually lends creedence
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-08-2018 at 10:30 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    Because sites like this may have limited users who actually engage in discussions, but there are plenty of lurkers and people who will stumble upon these threads (through google searches of whatever). If people come to this site, and only see the misinformation posted without rebuttal it can create a narrative that these things are agreed upon by the community and correct, and create a sense of credibility by the lack of information challenging it. Posting facts and arguments against the misinformation ensures that there is the information within this thread itself to disprove what is being posted. I'm sure most people posting in here would prefer not to have to spend the time rebutting MrCombust but the posts are not for him, he's not going to change his mind. They're for anyone else reading his thread.
    Once again thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do feel that if somebody stumbles upon this thread what they will witness instead of adroit discussion is poor assertions and in some instances poor rebuttals. So that MrCombust is not even being effectively rebutted. So that INSTEAD of offering the view that C2E doesn't support such discussion these threads and the Trump threads are showing that more and more this is what C2E is about. Endless OT banter and argument.

    Heres one of the real risks in a thread like this and the reason its endless. Its that climate change is being debated here by those that would not be able to critically refute the actual mathematical or scientific or theoretical constructs involved. Instead it devolves into endless citation of one view or the another with nothing ever settled. Essentially, because nobody here is an expert at climate change and that everybody present would be deferring automatically to one view or another. So that it becomes just another endless argument.


    I will say that some of the rebuttals in this thread are worse informed than even some of MrCombusts assertions. Some of them are on this very page.


    Climate change is the most complicated phenomenon and issue facing Humans. Even though I am post graduate, with some advanced coursework in Biology, Ecology, and select courses in which I had the benefit of a fantastic Unesco scholar as professor, I do not feel remotely capable of engaging this discussion in an informed way even though I have read countless books and texts on the subject. But I look at the replies here and its very evident people are just going primarily on what they are linking online. Which isn't scratching the surface of understanding or comprehension.

    As Paul mentioned everyone is spinning their wheels here, I agree, just as if it were a thread on subatomic particle physics.

    The only thing this thread really indicates is a willingness for all engaged to argue well beyond their scope and purview. Which we all do on occasion but usually with some grounding or bearing or background on the subject at hand. I'm not detecting anybody in this thread that is able to have a qualified discussion on climate change or global warming. So that effective refutation is not really at hand here.

    There doesn't even exist in this thread a concept that Global warming mechanisms are so complex that not everything is fully understood yet. Which isn't preventing people from arguing anyway that the Science is irrevocably substantiated on the subject.


    MrCombust has positioned this as a troll thread. He's willingly engaged in several easily established fallacies. Apparently for the purpose of eliciting replies. But the replies are in many cases equally misinformed. The saddest thing about this thread is that MrCombusts assertions, poor as some of them are, (not all) would be more effectively exposed if they were met with little response. As several of them lack the credibility to even warrant response. So that responding actually lends creedence
    Some of your points are valid, some are not. The worn out meme that you have to have a PhD, or University, to even discuss climate change is just another aspect of the fraud. Everyday people are being carbon taxed $1,000's of dollars a year for something they have no right to discuss? Ridiculous. We are all voters, and we all have a say where our taxes are spent. So if someone wants to read my posts, read the refutations, and learn something, good. I'm sick of the climate mongers posting the fraudulent hockey stick graph from 2001 and telling everybody we're all going to die.

    And as for some of the refutations of my posts........ yes. They're embarrassing. If you can do better, I welcome it. If our fellow Edmontonians and Albertans learn something from it, so much the better. Easily established fallacies? Show me.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  25. #925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    Because sites like this may have limited users who actually engage in discussions, but there are plenty of lurkers and people who will stumble upon these threads (through google searches of whatever). If people come to this site, and only see the misinformation posted without rebuttal it can create a narrative that these things are agreed upon by the community and correct, and create a sense of credibility by the lack of information challenging it. Posting facts and arguments against the misinformation ensures that there is the information within this thread itself to disprove what is being posted. I'm sure most people posting in here would prefer not to have to spend the time rebutting MrCombust but the posts are not for him, he's not going to change his mind. They're for anyone else reading his thread.
    Once again thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do feel that if somebody stumbles upon this thread what they will witness instead of adroit discussion is poor assertions and in some instances poor rebuttals. So that MrCombust is not even being effectively rebutted. So that INSTEAD of offering the view that C2E doesn't support such discussion these threads and the Trump threads are showing that more and more this is what C2E is about. Endless OT banter and argument.

    Heres one of the real risks in a thread like this and the reason its endless. Its that climate change is being debated here by those that would not be able to critically refute the actual mathematical or scientific or theoretical constructs involved. Instead it devolves into endless citation of one view or the another with nothing ever settled. Essentially, because nobody here is an expert at climate change and that everybody present would be deferring automatically to one view or another. So that it becomes just another endless argument.


    I will say that some of the rebuttals in this thread are worse informed than even some of MrCombusts assertions. Some of them are on this very page.


    Climate change is the most complicated phenomenon and issue facing Humans. Even though I am post graduate, with some advanced coursework in Biology, Ecology, and select courses in which I had the benefit of a fantastic Unesco scholar as professor, I do not feel remotely capable of engaging this discussion in an informed way even though I have read countless books and texts on the subject. But I look at the replies here and its very evident people are just going primarily on what they are linking online. Which isn't scratching the surface of understanding or comprehension.

    As Paul mentioned everyone is spinning their wheels here, I agree, just as if it were a thread on subatomic particle physics.

    The only thing this thread really indicates is a willingness for all engaged to argue well beyond their scope and purview. Which we all do on occasion but usually with some grounding or bearing or background on the subject at hand. I'm not detecting anybody in this thread that is able to have a qualified discussion on climate change or global warming. So that effective refutation is not really at hand here.

    There doesn't even exist in this thread a concept that Global warming mechanisms are so complex that not everything is fully understood yet. Which isn't preventing people from arguing anyway that the Science is irrevocably substantiated on the subject.


    MrCombust has positioned this as a troll thread. He's willingly engaged in several easily established fallacies. Apparently for the purpose of eliciting replies. But the replies are in many cases equally misinformed. The saddest thing about this thread is that MrCombusts assertions, poor as some of them are, (not all) would be more effectively exposed if they were met with little response. As several of them lack the credibility to even warrant response. So that responding actually lends creedence
    Some of your points are valid, some are not. The worn out meme that you have to have a PhD, or University, to even discuss climate change is just another aspect of the fraud. Everyday people are being carbon taxed $1,000's of dollars a year for something they have no right to discuss? Ridiculous. We are all voters, and we all have a say where our taxes are spent. So if someone wants to read my posts, read the refutations, and learn something, good. I'm sick of the climate mongers posting the fraudulent hockey stick graph from 2001 and telling everybody we're all going to die.

    And as for some of the refutations of my posts........ yes. They're embarrassing. If you can do better, I welcome it. If our fellow Edmontonians and Albertans learn something from it, so much the better. Easily established fallacies? Show me.
    Post 886 of yours would be the latest example of a fallacy. You cited the graph with several corresponding indices. You inferred that each source was so closely matching meant that it was collusion. That was your conclusion That is your theory. That is not fact, and it is not supported by fact in your post. Its a suspicion that either you, or somebody else had and that voiced that somewhere online.

    'But that is the inherent difficulty in engaging in such understanding of complicated phenomenon without the breadth of understanding of scientific background closely related to the topic. (be it educational based or extensive self learning) Because as much information and quality information can be found on the internet a lot of noise can be found there as well (you would possibly agree). Are you really going to refute published Scientific Journals not being better sources of information? You seem to indicate that the global scientific community is on the "fraud" or perpetrating the fraud. Yet deferring to layman understanding isn't going to rise much above the citations found here on this page or in the thread. For instance one poster (sorry) is surmising that there is substantiation that the urban heat island effect does not exist on the basis of one Scientific study. While not disclosing that several studies have supported the heat island effect.

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used. Basically the article is cited on its conclusion and probably found through a stab in the dark google search. In essence the article, in isolation is being represented with blind deference. THAT is not the pursuit of knowledge, its the confirmation bias search for what we already believe. Precontemplative bias exists in that endeavor. True pursuit of knowledge seeks out information with no entire notion of what the fact is. Genuine pursuit of knowledge is prepared to have a concept or fact refuted, and with an open mind. This even being an essential process of Science which is increasingly eroded.

    As soon as theres intent to use google search parameters to CHOOSE what one is specifically looking for to SUPPORT what one already believes its arguably already tainted enquiry. Indeed google, as an engine, and even search engine can even select for the knowledge contained in hits. I would be suspicious of that a lot more than I would be studying established, respected, scientific Journals in a University Library.


    Now if one is USING Scientific Journal indexing one can cross reference 100;s of articles on the same topic. Or referencing the same article or hypothesis. You could even do this going to the U of A. I'm older so this used to be located in volumes and volumes of citations indexes that the libraries physically contain. So that when we would write Scientific papers they would need to be referenced by a range of very on topic references. Anywhere from 25 on being my experience. This not being an exercise in futility but that the MORE articles on the topic that a student is made to read and cite (and to come up with 25 references that are valid you usually have to surf through around 100 of them) the wider the breadth of the point/counterpoint scientific and theoretical debate becomes. Indeed understanding this is consistent with the process of Scientific enquiry, discussion, and debate.

    In fact almost entirely lacking in rebuttals in this thread is a firm understanding that we are still at theoretical and hypothesis stage of scientific enquiry on the topic. That scientific models on global warming to a large extent have not been completely and irrefutably substantiated.

    Could I engage and refute you better than what has been demonstrated? Possibly, but it would be fairly pointless to do so and because obviously truth will not be found here. Indeed its an illusion of the internet that all wisdom is at our fingertips as we search things out online. This being a limited form of knowledge and one inferior to informed books and scientific literature and discourse. But what we have here is everybody posing as an expert at discussion in which they do not have the breadth of comprehension in which to be stating and citing effective assertion or rebuttal.
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-08-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #926

    Default

    An unrelated story, but connected with Google as a search engine. A couple years ago I was doing extensive searching for articles online. (we all do this despite the risks I just noted above) and even though I was searching entirely different topics, using different parameters, and changing the search terms, parameters and settings I was uniformly obtaining sources from select Universities or Online repositories. Instead of actual open enquiry I was quite clearly getting google geared specific hits. No matter what I did. I even went to the extent of selecting out some sources in parameters and I was still seeing those hits.

    I think we've all experienced this. We know that extensive online tracking occurs, that our preferences are noted, that ads cater to us to our views and searches. We know that Google as a search engine of enquiry is highly tainted and suspicious, at best a poor search engine, and we use it. Out of laziness or lack of better information found in what is todays media. Or postmedia, never a more apt name found for a newspaper chain.

    The great tragedy of online information is we now have accepted arbiters of what information is. We have engines like Google as the supreme power of all enquiry. Oddly we barely even question it..do we really comprehend the power it yields?
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-08-2018 at 11:49 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #927
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    Thanks for the extremely thoughtful posts replacement. Don't agree that directing people towards scientific research is fruitless if you don't have a full understanding of the topic, but most of the rest is on point.

  28. #928

  29. #929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    Post 886 of yours would be the latest example of a fallacy. You cited the graph with several corresponding indices. You inferred that each source was so closely matching meant that it was collusion. That was your conclusion That is your theory. That is not fact, and it is not supported by fact in your post. Its a suspicion that either you, or somebody else had and that voiced that somewhere online.

    'But that is the inherent difficulty in engaging in such understanding of complicated phenomenon without the breadth of understanding of scientific background closely related to the topic. (be it educational based or extensive self learning) Because as much information and quality information can be found on the internet a lot of noise can be found there as well (you would possibly agree). Are you really going to refute published Scientific Journals not being better sources of information? You seem to indicate that the global scientific community is on the "fraud" or perpetrating the fraud. Yet deferring to layman understanding isn't going to rise much above the citations found here on this page or in the thread. For instance one poster (sorry) is surmising that there is substantiation that the urban heat island effect does not exist on the basis of one Scientific study. While not disclosing that several studies have supported the heat island effect.

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used. Basically the article is cited on its conclusion and probably found through a stab in the dark google search. In essence the article, in isolation is being represented with blind deference. THAT is not the pursuit of knowledge, its the confirmation bias search for what we already believe. Precontemplative bias exists in that endeavor. True pursuit of knowledge seeks out information with no entire notion of what the fact is. Genuine pursuit of knowledge is prepared to have a concept or fact refuted, and with an open mind. This even being an essential process of Science which is increasingly eroded.

    As soon as theres intent to use google search parameters to CHOOSE what one is specifically looking for to SUPPORT what one already believes its arguably already tainted enquiry. Indeed google, as an engine, and even search engine can even select for the knowledge contained in hits. I would be suspicious of that a lot more than I would be studying established, respected, scientific Journals in a University Library.


    Now if one is USING Scientific Journal indexing one can cross reference 100;s of articles on the same topic. Or referencing the same article or hypothesis. You could even do this going to the U of A. I'm older so this used to be located in volumes and volumes of citations indexes that the libraries physically contain. So that when we would write Scientific papers they would need to be referenced by a range of very on topic references. Anywhere from 25 on being my experience. This not being an exercise in futility but that the MORE articles on the topic that a student is made to read and cite (and to come up with 25 references that are valid you usually have to surf through around 100 of them) the wider the breadth of the point/counterpoint scientific and theoretical debate becomes. Indeed understanding this is consistent with the process of Scientific enquiry, discussion, and debate.

    In fact almost entirely lacking in rebuttals in this thread is a firm understanding that we are still at theoretical and hypothesis stage of scientific enquiry on the topic. That scientific models on global warming to a large extent have not been completely and irrefutably substantiated.

    Could I engage and refute you better than what has been demonstrated? Possibly, but it would be fairly pointless to do so and because obviously truth will not be found here. Indeed its an illusion of the internet that all wisdom is at our fingertips as we search things out online. This being a limited form of knowledge and one inferior to informed books and scientific literature and discourse. But what we have here is everybody posing as an expert at discussion in which they do not have the breadth of comprehension in which to be stating and citing effective assertion or rebuttal.
    Post 886 isn't a fallacy. Even the concept of a worldwide temperature, based on land weather stations, is a fraud. Most of the earth is covered by water. NONE of the datasets have temperatures form MOST of the land or oceans. England has a robust temperature data set from Antarctica going back to 1800's? I don't think so.


    Let's say for this argument all the data sets used the same 3 stations to represent Antarctica. That would mean they're not independent data sets, but let's pretend they're somehow independent but still using the same stations. Now these stations are 1,000 miles apart because they're representing a whole continent. Arbitrary decisions must now be made as to how to represent a continent with three stations. If one station shows -40, another -10, and the third +4, how do you come up witha a temperature for Antarctica? Just average them? Use a climate model and plug in the points you have? give weight to a station closer to the centre? If the data sets are independent the arbitrary decisions will be different, and you will get a different temperature for Antarctica.

    The fact is the different data sets represent different parts of the earth better, and different parts of the earth worse. To have all the data sets come up with an arbitrary world wide temperature the same going back 100 years isn't precision, it's collusion.

    RSS and UAH satellite data are based on the EXACT SAME data, and even they don't agree.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-08-2018 at 09:41 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Post 886 of yours would be the latest example of a fallacy. You cited the graph with several corresponding indices. You inferred that each source was so closely matching meant that it was collusion. That was your conclusion That is your theory. That is not fact, and it is not supported by fact in your post. Its a suspicion that either you, or somebody else had and that voiced that somewhere online.

    'But that is the inherent difficulty in engaging in such understanding of complicated phenomenon without the breadth of understanding of scientific background closely related to the topic. (be it educational based or extensive self learning) Because as much information and quality information can be found on the internet a lot of noise can be found there as well (you would possibly agree). Are you really going to refute published Scientific Journals not being better sources of information? You seem to indicate that the global scientific community is on the "fraud" or perpetrating the fraud. Yet deferring to layman understanding isn't going to rise much above the citations found here on this page or in the thread. For instance one poster (sorry) is surmising that there is substantiation that the urban heat island effect does not exist on the basis of one Scientific study. While not disclosing that several studies have supported the heat island effect.

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used. Basically the article is cited on its conclusion and probably found through a stab in the dark google search. In essence the article, in isolation is being represented with blind deference. THAT is not the pursuit of knowledge, its the confirmation bias search for what we already believe. Precontemplative bias exists in that endeavor. True pursuit of knowledge seeks out information with no entire notion of what the fact is. Genuine pursuit of knowledge is prepared to have a concept or fact refuted, and with an open mind. This even being an essential process of Science which is increasingly eroded.

    As soon as theres intent to use google search parameters to CHOOSE what one is specifically looking for to SUPPORT what one already believes its arguably already tainted enquiry. Indeed google, as an engine, and even search engine can even select for the knowledge contained in hits. I would be suspicious of that a lot more than I would be studying established, respected, scientific Journals in a University Library.


    Now if one is USING Scientific Journal indexing one can cross reference 100;s of articles on the same topic. Or referencing the same article or hypothesis. You could even do this going to the U of A. I'm older so this used to be located in volumes and volumes of citations indexes that the libraries physically contain. So that when we would write Scientific papers they would need to be referenced by a range of very on topic references. Anywhere from 25 on being my experience. This not being an exercise in futility but that the MORE articles on the topic that a student is made to read and cite (and to come up with 25 references that are valid you usually have to surf through around 100 of them) the wider the breadth of the point/counterpoint scientific and theoretical debate becomes. Indeed understanding this is consistent with the process of Scientific enquiry, discussion, and debate.

    In fact almost entirely lacking in rebuttals in this thread is a firm understanding that we are still at theoretical and hypothesis stage of scientific enquiry on the topic. That scientific models on global warming to a large extent have not been completely and irrefutably substantiated.

    Could I engage and refute you better than what has been demonstrated? Possibly, but it would be fairly pointless to do so and because obviously truth will not be found here. Indeed its an illusion of the internet that all wisdom is at our fingertips as we search things out online. This being a limited form of knowledge and one inferior to informed books and scientific literature and discourse. But what we have here is everybody posing as an expert at discussion in which they do not have the breadth of comprehension in which to be stating and citing effective assertion or rebuttal.
    I hope you're not referring to my post #916 because, if so, you are completely misrepresenting my position and in so doing becoming guilty of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Let me be clear: the urban heat island effect is real. However, the existence of it does not in any way imply that global warming is absent. As the peer reviewed paper I referenced illustrates there is strong evidence that the relative warming between urban and rural sites is equivalent. Hence what I said in my post: "There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites."

    As an aside, all of the evidence which I reference is always directly back to the original peer reviewed research.

  31. #931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    I hope you're not referring to my post #916 because, if so, you are completely misrepresenting my position and in so doing becoming guilty of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Let me be clear: the urban heat island effect is real. However, the existence of it does not in any way imply that global warming is absent. As the peer reviewed paper I referenced illustrates there is strong evidence that the relative warming between urban and rural sites is equivalent. Hence what I said in my post: "There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites."

    As an aside, all of the evidence which I reference is always directly back to the original peer reviewed research.
    So, the warming correlated with an increase in CO2 isn't being caused by CO2? It's being caused by the UHI? Exactly my point.

    And replacement is right. Berkeley Earth is a bad reference. My post on collusion is an example.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  32. #932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    I hope you're not referring to my post #916 because, if so, you are completely misrepresenting my position and in so doing becoming guilty of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Let me be clear: the urban heat island effect is real. However, the existence of it does not in any way imply that global warming is absent. As the peer reviewed paper I referenced illustrates there is strong evidence that the relative warming between urban and rural sites is equivalent. Hence what I said in my post: "There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites."

    As an aside, all of the evidence which I reference is always directly back to the original peer reviewed research.
    So, the warming correlated with an increase in CO2 isn't being caused by CO2? It's being caused by the UHI? Exactly my point.
    May I ask you to please read what I wrote and respond to that rather than just making stuff up?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    And replacement is right. Berkeley Earth is a bad reference. My post on collusion is an example.
    I thought Donald said there was no collusion?
    Last edited by OffWhyte; 23-08-2018 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Typo

  33. #933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    I hope you're not referring to my post #916 because, if so, you are completely misrepresenting my position and in so doing becoming guilty of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Let me be clear: the urban heat island effect is real. However, the existence of it does not in any way imply that global warming is absent. As the peer reviewed paper I referenced illustrates there is strong evidence that the relative warming between urban and rural sites is equivalent. Hence what I said in my post: "There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites."

    As an aside, all of the evidence which I reference is always directly back to the original peer reviewed research.
    So, the warming correlated with an increase in CO2 isn't being caused by CO2? It's being caused by the UHI? Exactly my point.
    May I ask you to please read what I wrote and respond to that rather than just making stuff up?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    And replacement is right. Berkeley Earth is a bad reference. My post on collusion is an example.
    I thought Donald said there was no collision?
    What you wrote isn't clear, and doesn't make sense. Either the UHI is real, or it's not. If the UHI is creating an artificial warming trend, then the record is corrupted by it, and some of the warming recorded is not because of CO2..
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #934

    Default

    UHI is real, but it doesn't matter... the effects of UHI don't change year to year, but temperature keep rising at the same rates as areas that are not affected by UHI...

    Not sure how this is such a hard concept for you to grasp... Do you need a cartoon to explain it?

  35. #935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    and some of the warming recorded is not because of CO2..
    So some of the warming IS caused by CO2... did you just admit that?! finally?!

  36. #936

    Default The TRUTH. about climate change arguments.........

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    Heres one of the real risks in a thread like this and the reason its endless. Its that climate change is being debated here by those that would not be able to critically refute the actual mathematical or scientific or theoretical constructs involved. Instead it devolves into endless citation of one view or the another with nothing ever settled. Essentially, because nobody here is an expert at climate change and that everybody present would be deferring automatically to one view or another. So that it becomes just another endless argument.
    What you don't want to conclude from this is the TRUTH. The reason there's "endless citation", and "nothing's ever settled", is because climate change is unknown. The feedbacks that are supposed to multiply the minor effect of CO2 are UNKNOWN. You can write as many papers as you want, do countless examinations, you can pretend to know (there's a LOT of that going on), you can guess, and whatever elso you want to do, BUT. The fact is WE DON'T KNOW. And that, in itself, IS THE REFUTATION. Climate "science" that pretends to know what the Earth's temperature will be 100 years from now is fraud. The "science" is NOT settled.

    That's not a "devolution" of this discussion, it's the conclusion.

    I am here to show Edmontonians and Albertans climate "science" isn't known, isn't settled, and isn't proven.

    Anybody who says it is is mistaken or lying. And there's a hell of a lot of lying going on about climate change.

    You're welcome.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  37. #937

    Default The TRUTH. Today's "just for laughs" post, courtesy of the CBC.

    "Climate change likely to cause more sewage leaks, McKenna says"

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wastewater-sewage-climate-cp-1.4785810
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #938

    Default

    says there's lying going on about climate change - but hasn't yet proven that... at all... Go on! Fake news is entertaining, and there's a lot of fake news you are sharing here, MrCombust.

  39. #939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Post 886 of yours would be the latest example of a fallacy. You cited the graph with several corresponding indices. You inferred that each source was so closely matching meant that it was collusion. That was your conclusion That is your theory. That is not fact, and it is not supported by fact in your post. Its a suspicion that either you, or somebody else had and that voiced that somewhere online.

    'But that is the inherent difficulty in engaging in such understanding of complicated phenomenon without the breadth of understanding of scientific background closely related to the topic. (be it educational based or extensive self learning) Because as much information and quality information can be found on the internet a lot of noise can be found there as well (you would possibly agree). Are you really going to refute published Scientific Journals not being better sources of information? You seem to indicate that the global scientific community is on the "fraud" or perpetrating the fraud. Yet deferring to layman understanding isn't going to rise much above the citations found here on this page or in the thread. For instance one poster (sorry) is surmising that there is substantiation that the urban heat island effect does not exist on the basis of one Scientific study. While not disclosing that several studies have supported the heat island effect.

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used. Basically the article is cited on its conclusion and probably found through a stab in the dark google search. In essence the article, in isolation is being represented with blind deference. THAT is not the pursuit of knowledge, its the confirmation bias search for what we already believe. Precontemplative bias exists in that endeavor. True pursuit of knowledge seeks out information with no entire notion of what the fact is. Genuine pursuit of knowledge is prepared to have a concept or fact refuted, and with an open mind. This even being an essential process of Science which is increasingly eroded.

    As soon as theres intent to use google search parameters to CHOOSE what one is specifically looking for to SUPPORT what one already believes its arguably already tainted enquiry. Indeed google, as an engine, and even search engine can even select for the knowledge contained in hits. I would be suspicious of that a lot more than I would be studying established, respected, scientific Journals in a University Library.


    Now if one is USING Scientific Journal indexing one can cross reference 100;s of articles on the same topic. Or referencing the same article or hypothesis. You could even do this going to the U of A. I'm older so this used to be located in volumes and volumes of citations indexes that the libraries physically contain. So that when we would write Scientific papers they would need to be referenced by a range of very on topic references. Anywhere from 25 on being my experience. This not being an exercise in futility but that the MORE articles on the topic that a student is made to read and cite (and to come up with 25 references that are valid you usually have to surf through around 100 of them) the wider the breadth of the point/counterpoint scientific and theoretical debate becomes. Indeed understanding this is consistent with the process of Scientific enquiry, discussion, and debate.

    In fact almost entirely lacking in rebuttals in this thread is a firm understanding that we are still at theoretical and hypothesis stage of scientific enquiry on the topic. That scientific models on global warming to a large extent have not been completely and irrefutably substantiated.

    Could I engage and refute you better than what has been demonstrated? Possibly, but it would be fairly pointless to do so and because obviously truth will not be found here. Indeed its an illusion of the internet that all wisdom is at our fingertips as we search things out online. This being a limited form of knowledge and one inferior to informed books and scientific literature and discourse. But what we have here is everybody posing as an expert at discussion in which they do not have the breadth of comprehension in which to be stating and citing effective assertion or rebuttal.
    I hope you're not referring to my post #916 because, if so, you are completely misrepresenting my position and in so doing becoming guilty of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Let me be clear: the urban heat island effect is real. However, the existence of it does not in any way imply that global warming is absent. As the peer reviewed paper I referenced illustrates there is strong evidence that the relative warming between urban and rural sites is equivalent. Hence what I said in my post: "There are a lot of data that show warming is similar between rural and urban sites."

    As an aside, all of the evidence which I reference is always directly back to the original peer reviewed research.
    I was referring to an exchange. A prominent poster here was referring to the sidebar discussion around weather stations. The inference being that those stations, and thus their heat island effect had not changed in 100 years and with the Van Nuys airport cited. But its unclear that's the case. For the time being MrCombust has seemingly rebutted that unless the picture of the airport is false. Which I haven't been able to determine (another problem with internet sources) Your post and others posts seemingly agreed that the heat island effect would not be impacting readings.

    Thank you for your clarification, I follow it now, and I agree that global temperatures are increasing, but in fairness what is the topic of the discussion in the thread is weather global warming is occurring specifically through increased Co2 or through myriad factors, some unexplained, and some known. For instance heat island effect of urban areas. deforestation effects on warming, Most of the thread is a lengthy debate whether the warming is occurring due to C02 gas increase. Many other factors exist, known and unknown. So that for all involved the sidebar on weather reporting stations was probably fairly pointless as the point that theres other substantiation that global temperature is increasing. I didn't mean to single you out, and even said sorry in the post, and I did that because of the posters contributing you have substantiated your posts and cited them and did leg work in doing so. But I still don't get the impression that I was off in suggesting that it was largely internet sourced and googled information. Not sure if you follow my general critique of that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used.
    On Berkeley Earth's website you will see this, and other, statements like it.....................

    "Climate-change skeptic becomes clime-change believer"
    http://berkeleyearth.org/press/

    This is a fairy tale created, and perpetrated by Mueller...................
    "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

    Richard Muller, 2003
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...lobal-warming/

    The author of the Berkeley Earth website is a ----------, and you want me to do extensive research on his publications?

    i don't have to, I already know what I'll find. "Science" is only as good as the integrity of the author.

    Consider your challenge accepted and concluded.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  41. #941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    Post 886 of yours would be the latest example of a fallacy. You cited the graph with several corresponding indices. You inferred that each source was so closely matching meant that it was collusion. That was your conclusion That is your theory. That is not fact, and it is not supported by fact in your post. Its a suspicion that either you, or somebody else had and that voiced that somewhere online.

    'But that is the inherent difficulty in engaging in such understanding of complicated phenomenon without the breadth of understanding of scientific background closely related to the topic. (be it educational based or extensive self learning) Because as much information and quality information can be found on the internet a lot of noise can be found there as well (you would possibly agree). Are you really going to refute published Scientific Journals not being better sources of information? You seem to indicate that the global scientific community is on the "fraud" or perpetrating the fraud. Yet deferring to layman understanding isn't going to rise much above the citations found here on this page or in the thread. For instance one poster (sorry) is surmising that there is substantiation that the urban heat island effect does not exist on the basis of one Scientific study. While not disclosing that several studies have supported the heat island effect.

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used. Basically the article is cited on its conclusion and probably found through a stab in the dark google search. In essence the article, in isolation is being represented with blind deference. THAT is not the pursuit of knowledge, its the confirmation bias search for what we already believe. Precontemplative bias exists in that endeavor. True pursuit of knowledge seeks out information with no entire notion of what the fact is. Genuine pursuit of knowledge is prepared to have a concept or fact refuted, and with an open mind. This even being an essential process of Science which is increasingly eroded.

    As soon as theres intent to use google search parameters to CHOOSE what one is specifically looking for to SUPPORT what one already believes its arguably already tainted enquiry. Indeed google, as an engine, and even search engine can even select for the knowledge contained in hits. I would be suspicious of that a lot more than I would be studying established, respected, scientific Journals in a University Library.


    Now if one is USING Scientific Journal indexing one can cross reference 100;s of articles on the same topic. Or referencing the same article or hypothesis. You could even do this going to the U of A. I'm older so this used to be located in volumes and volumes of citations indexes that the libraries physically contain. So that when we would write Scientific papers they would need to be referenced by a range of very on topic references. Anywhere from 25 on being my experience. This not being an exercise in futility but that the MORE articles on the topic that a student is made to read and cite (and to come up with 25 references that are valid you usually have to surf through around 100 of them) the wider the breadth of the point/counterpoint scientific and theoretical debate becomes. Indeed understanding this is consistent with the process of Scientific enquiry, discussion, and debate.

    In fact almost entirely lacking in rebuttals in this thread is a firm understanding that we are still at theoretical and hypothesis stage of scientific enquiry on the topic. That scientific models on global warming to a large extent have not been completely and irrefutably substantiated.

    Could I engage and refute you better than what has been demonstrated? Possibly, but it would be fairly pointless to do so and because obviously truth will not be found here. Indeed its an illusion of the internet that all wisdom is at our fingertips as we search things out online. This being a limited form of knowledge and one inferior to informed books and scientific literature and discourse. But what we have here is everybody posing as an expert at discussion in which they do not have the breadth of comprehension in which to be stating and citing effective assertion or rebuttal.
    Post 886 isn't a fallacy. Even the concept of a worldwide temperature, based on land weather stations, is a fraud. Most of the earth is covered by water. NONE of the datasets have temperatures form MOST of the land or oceans. England has a robust temperature data set from Antarctica going back to 1800's? I don't think so.


    Let's say for this argument all the data sets used the same 3 stations to represent Antarctica. That would mean they're not independent data sets, but let's pretend they're somehow independent but still using the same stations. Now these stations are 1,000 miles apart because they're representing a whole continent. Arbitrary decisions must now be made as to how to represent a continent with three stations. If one station shows -40, another -10, and the third +4, how do you come up witha a temperature for Antarctica? Just average them? Use a climate model and plug in the points you have? give weight to a station closer to the centre? If the data sets are independent the arbitrary decisions will be different, and you will get a different temperature for Antarctica.

    The fact is the different data sets represent different parts of the earth better, and different parts of the earth worse. To have all the data sets come up with an arbitrary world wide temperature the same going back 100 years isn't precision, it's collusion.

    RSS and UAH satellite data are based on the EXACT SAME data, and even they don't agree.
    Nowhere in that response did I actually state that your premise was wrong regarding the weather stations and heat island effects. I'm actually sympathetic to that argument. It was the way you framed your post that made it a fallacy. i.e. you wrote it as if the closely corresponding data were so similar that collusion was involved. That's how a reader would view that post. So that it wasn't the finding that is necessarily false, it was the presentation of an argument, within that post, that is possibly false and that was not substantiated in that post and lacked citation to substantiate it. If this is clear.

    The curious thing is it seems like you could frame your arguments or positions better, but that you are almost purposely not doing that in order to get replies, as are others responding to you. The sense one gets from reading most of these posts is multiple posters kind of playing games with how they are phrasing their arguments. Tactical argument rather than actually a discussion on Global warming.

    AS per example if you wanted to make that specific post more convincing you would have added this addendum or description on where all the reporting stations were, and variance of location or effecting location etc. So that this clarification, now, more completes the post in question I cited. Albeit in fairness I see some clarification in your other posts. But it seems upon reading that you wanted to make an incomplete statement, to elicit replies, so that you could then counter with the information you knew you had at hand. That's what I mean by tactical argument, and the presence of it indicates as much a willingness or pursuit to be right in a discussion vs seeking additional truth. Not sure if the way I am stating this is clear either. Its hard to convey accurately what one means online.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  42. #942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    But heres the kicker. I challenge anybody here to read that article and actually understand the article, go to all the references, look up the model used and empirically evaluating possible limitation or critics of the model used.
    On Berkeley Earth's website you will see this, and other, statements like it.....................

    "Climate-change skeptic becomes clime-change believer"
    http://berkeleyearth.org/press/

    This is a fairy tale created, and perpetrated by Mueller...................
    "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

    Richard Muller, 2003
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...lobal-warming/

    The author of the Berkeley Earth website is a ----------, and you want me to do extensive research on his publications?

    i don't have to, I already know what I'll find. "Science" is only as good as the integrity of the author.

    Consider your challenge accepted and concluded.
    I'm sceptical of the study myself and the model used. Thus why I wrote what I did. Where I differ however is in easily making conclusion. For a number of reasons.

    1)Making such conclusion without the ability/background, expertise to independently critique or support positions on global warming still makes ones assessment faith based and determined by which authors, sources, and studies one believes.

    2) None of us, quite obviously, are qualified to make such conclusion. To do so is a display of ignorance, if not arrogance. You should agree with this.

    3) The phenomenon of global warming is complex enough that many conclusions being made, even in the scientific community, perhaps should not be. Or prudently should not be. For lack of better words.

    4)All of what we believe here is largely irrelevant. So that for the most part this is argument for the sake of argument.

    5)Which is all pretty OT to what C2E should ideally be topically about.

    6)Global warming is occurring regardless of what degree is caused by Co2 emissions.
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-08-2018 at 10:42 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    1)Making such conclusion without the ability to independently critique or support positions on global warming still makes ones assessment faith based and determined by which authors, sources, and studies one believes.
    Not necessarily. When the very "experts" who research and publish conclusions refute their own work, or, when predictions are made that do not come true....... you can make a determination there are errors in the work, and that it can not be used.

    A number of my posts contain such predictions, and a few of my posts include researchers refuting their own work. It is no secret there is no statistical global warming in the satellite record since 2000. Authors of climate papers, letters in journals, and the IPCC are carefully trying to navigate the obvious failure of the climate models while trying to maintain the facade of certainty about the effects of CO2.

    When I point out the climate models have failed, and even the climate modelers admit it.................. the advocates go to their liar blogs and refute my statements with lair blog "science". Berkeley Earth being one of them.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  44. #944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I was referring to an exchange. A prominent poster here was referring to the sidebar discussion around weather stations. The inference being that those stations, and thus their heat island effect had not changed in 100 years and with the Van Nuys airport cited. But its unclear that's the case. For the time being MrCombust has seemingly rebutted that unless the picture of the airport is false. Which I haven't been able to determine (another problem with internet sources) Your post and others posts seemingly agreed that the heat island effect would not be impacting readings.
    To be clear, when the data set consists of millions of measurements from thousands of sites, posting a few photos of a single site proves nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Thank you for your clarification, I follow it now, and I agree that global temperatures are increasing, but in fairness what is the topic of the discussion in the thread is weather global warming is occurring specifically through increased Co2 or through myriad factors, some unexplained, and some known. For instance heat island effect of urban areas. deforestation effects on warming, Most of the thread is a lengthy debate whether the warming is occurring due to C02 gas increase. Many other factors exist, known and unknown. So that for all involved the sidebar on weather reporting stations was probably fairly pointless as the point that theres other substantiation that global temperature is increasing. I didn't mean to single you out, and even said sorry in the post, and I did that because of the posters contributing you have substantiated your posts and cited them and did leg work in doing so. But I still don't get the impression that I was off in suggesting that it was largely internet sourced and googled information. Not sure if you follow my general critique of that.
    I see. As I said, I do always provide links directly to the original peer-reviewed research; my references are generally not sourced through a simple Google search. However, I do frequently reference landmark studies which means they will also feature prominently on a Google search.

  45. #945

    Default The TRUTH. Rescue that frog! About as crazy as it gets. Published in Science.

    These guys want a worldwide carbon tax of $400 a ton. Anybody have a clue what that would do the world economy, and how many people would die?

    "A roadmap for rapid decarbonization"

    "..........we propose framing the decarbonization challenge in terms of a global decadal roadmap based on a simple heuristic—a “carbon law”—of halving gross anthropogenic carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions every decade. Complemented by immediately instigated, scalable carbon removal and efforts to ramp down land-use CO2 emissions, this can lead to net-zero emissions around mid-century, a path necessary to limit warming to well below 2°C............"

    net-zero emissions

    Everybody gets a mud hut and an acre of land to grow food. And who gets the $400/ton? Don't you worry about that, you're saving the planet.

    Science......
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269

    Full article
    http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-con...et-al-2017.pdf
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Not necessarily. When the very "experts" who research and publish conclusions refute their own work, or, when predictions are made that do not come true....... you can make a determination there are errors in the work, and that it can not be used.

    A number of my posts contain such predictions, and a few of my posts include researchers refuting their own work. It is no secret there is no statistical global warming in the satellite record since 2000. Authors of climate papers, letters in journals, and the IPCC are carefully trying to navigate the obvious failure of the climate models while trying to maintain the facade of certainty about the effects of CO2.

    When I point out the climate models have failed, and even the climate modelers admit it.................. the advocates go to their liar blogs and refute my statements with lair blog "science". Berkeley Earth being one of them.
    I'm not sure what's so special about the year 2000 that would make purported lack of significance since then so important. However, if the year 2000 happens to be somehow very special to you then you'll be pleased to know RSS data do indeed show statistically significant warming since that year:

    (Blue line is the trend line; red line is 12-month moving average; grey lines are 95% confidence intervals. Source of data: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/; methodology for calculations: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/044022/meta; source for graph: https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php;)

    However, as I said, there's nothing particularly important about the year 2000. What's more important is that the all satellite data (including UAH) show warming since inception that is consistent with climate models. Here are the trends for the 1979-2010 time period.

    (Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/044022/meta)

  47. #947

    Default

    You're right, $400/ton is an extreme position, one that they selected to halve CO2 production every 10 years. But in this context 'do nothing' as advocated by more powerful organizations like the UCP and the federal Conservative party are equally extreme, no?

    I would have to assume that the $400/ton would be adjust on a PPP basis, or something similar. People living in poor nations produce very little Co2 and small solar panels are often better for their limited needs (lighting, charging phones) than unreliable grids already. Despite your predictions of economic collapse there would be little impact on poverty.

    And of course all revenue could either replace existing taxes in some cases or provide desperately needed services in others. It's not money that would just disappear.

    If my math is correct $400/ton would be on the order of $20/GJ, and up to 30c/kwhr based on the US's current coal-heavy generation mix. That would definitely hurt, but halve it to $200/ton and the total price of natural gas would be in the range of what it was when Ralph brought in a cap, adjusted for inflation and our electricity rates would be in the same range as what Ontario is paying now. As a bonus there would be lots of money for either avoiding the need for a general sales tax, or for larger per capita rebates for all it matters to the carbon tax side of policy.

    $400/ton is about $1 per litre if the publicised 5c/l on Alberta's initial $20 per ton was right. Totally not the end of the world, although probably more than is necessary to make change happen. And still cheaper than most of Europe. Many Alberta drivers could just downsize from the full-size vehicle and 28-foot trailer and pay no more for fuel in a year.
    There can only be one.

  48. #948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Not necessarily. When the very "experts" who research and publish conclusions refute their own work, or, when predictions are made that do not come true....... you can make a determination there are errors in the work, and that it can not be used.

    A number of my posts contain such predictions, and a few of my posts include researchers refuting their own work. It is no secret there is no statistical global warming in the satellite record since 2000. Authors of climate papers, letters in journals, and the IPCC are carefully trying to navigate the obvious failure of the climate models while trying to maintain the facade of certainty about the effects of CO2.

    When I point out the climate models have failed, and even the climate modelers admit it.................. the advocates go to their liar blogs and refute my statements with lair blog "science". Berkeley Earth being one of them.
    I'm not sure what's so special about the year 2000 that would make purported lack of significance since then so important. However, if the year 2000 happens to be somehow very special to you then you'll be pleased to know RSS data do indeed show statistically significant warming since that year:

    (Blue line is the trend line; red line is 12-month moving average; grey lines are 95% confidence intervals. Source of data: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/; methodology for calculations: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/044022/meta; source for graph: https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php;)

    However, as I said, there's nothing particularly important about the year 2000. What's more important is that the all satellite data (including UAH) show warming since inception that is consistent with climate models. Here are the trends for the 1979-2010 time period.

    (Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/044022/meta)
    Well here's a graph from RSS instead of your liar blog.............

    You'll see that the climate models (in yellow) agreed well with the trend until about the year 2000. After that the climate model predictions dropped out of range. When I say no statistical warming, I mean it in reference to the post I said it in, in which was discussing the accuracy of the climate models.

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

    Once again, the point of the post was about scientists refuting their own work, or admitting the climate models failed. The keeper of RSS says this about the climate model predictions........

    "...........Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations............."

    By "a small discrepancy" the pro global warming keeper of RSS means below the climate model error range.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 24-08-2018 at 06:27 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  49. #949

    Default The TRUTH. Climate researchers warn about the only hope for humanity........

    "Only Hope For Humanity Now Lies In Possibility They're Making All Of This Up"

    "GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them."

    https://www.theonion.com/climate-res...lie-1828171232
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  50. #950
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    As I said once before, its all about population. Too many people on the planet.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #951

    Default

    ^ This is one factor for sure. The population of the earth has more than doubled in the last 60 years, almost quadrupled in the last 100 years.

    30 years from now we're looking at 10 billion people. Pretty scary when you think that there was only 1 billion in the early 1800's.

  52. #952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well here's a graph from RSS instead of your liar blog.............

    You'll see that the climate models (in yellow) agreed well with the trend until about the year 2000. After that the climate model predictions dropped out of range. When I say no statistical warming, I mean it in reference to the post I said it in, in which was discussing the accuracy of the climate models.

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

    Once again, the point of the post was about scientists refuting their own work, or admitting the climate models failed. The keeper of RSS says this about the climate model predictions........

    "...........Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations............."

    By "a small discrepancy" the pro global warming keeper of RSS means below the climate model error range.

    You neglected to include the most important part of the page you referenced, to wit:

    Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

    • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade).
    • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
    • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
    (Source: http://www.remss.com/research/climate/)

    Of course the same page does go on to say "the troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict" but that does not mean the models are invalid. There are in fact many reasons why there might not be perfect agreement between the models and observations during a certain time period. In order to understand why, and since you immediately disparage any source written in plain English as a "liar blog", you will have to content yourself with reading, understanding, and responding to the peer-reviewed literature:

    Medhaug, Iselin, et al. "Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 41.

    Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled." Nature Geoscience 7.9 (2014): 651.

    Schmidt, Gavin A., Drew T. Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis. "Reconciling warming trends." Nature Geoscience 7.3 (2014): 158.

    Santer, Benjamin D., et al. "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." Nature Geoscience 10.7 (2017): 478.

    Risbey, James S., et al. "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase." Nature Climate Change 4.9 (2014): 835.

    Dai, Aiguo, et al. "Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability." Nature Climate Change 5.6 (2015): 555.

    Kosaka, Yu, and Shang-Ping Xie. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling." Nature 501.7467 (2013): 403.

    Hansen, James, et al. "Earth's energy imbalance and implications." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.

    Karl, Thomas R., et al. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus." Science (2015): aaa5632.

    Cowtan, Kevin, et al. "Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures." Geophysical Research Letters 42.15 (2015): 6526-6534.

  53. #953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "Only Hope For Humanity Now Lies In Possibility They're Making All Of This Up"

    "GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them."

    https://www.theonion.com/climate-res...lie-1828171232
    Since you're now using The Onion as a reference is it safe to assume that you were just being satirical all along?

  54. #954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    As I said once before, its all about population. Too many people on the planet.
    Too many people upgrading their standard of living. We could likely support great numbers of people on the planet if everyone chose to live in a stare of near starvation with minimum housing, transportation, social, medical and other wants and needs.

    Additionally, stopping all expansionary, strip mining style agriculture and resource extraction and switching to intensive food production and possible recycling of near everything might preserve a bit of the natural world.

    Double Alberta’s population though and local needs, wants and demands for supporting food and materials ripple outward across the globe. In Alberta alone, more forest land gets cleared developed or repurposed towards human needs, more river water gets redirected, cleaned, used, chemically altered then put back into the environment....
    Last edited by KC; 27-08-2018 at 09:40 AM.

  55. #955

    Default The TRUTH. Climate scientists that admit the pause and that the climate models have failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well here's a graph from RSS instead of your liar blog.............

    You'll see that the climate models (in yellow) agreed well with the trend until about the year 2000. After that the climate model predictions dropped out of range. When I say no statistical warming, I mean it in reference to the post I said it in, in which was discussing the accuracy of the climate models.

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

    Once again, the point of the post was about scientists refuting their own work, or admitting the climate models failed. The keeper of RSS says this about the climate model predictions........

    "...........Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations............."

    By "a small discrepancy" the pro global warming keeper of RSS means below the climate model error range.

    You neglected to include the most important part of the page you referenced, to wit:

    Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

    • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade).
    • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
    • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
    (Source: http://www.remss.com/research/climate/)

    Of course the same page does go on to say "the troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict" but that does not mean the models are invalid. There are in fact many reasons why there might not be perfect agreement between the models and observations during a certain time period. In order to understand why, and since you immediately disparage any source written in plain English as a "liar blog", you will have to content yourself with reading, understanding, and responding to the peer-reviewed literature:

    Medhaug, Iselin, et al. "Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 41.

    Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled." Nature Geoscience 7.9 (2014): 651.

    Schmidt, Gavin A., Drew T. Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis. "Reconciling warming trends." Nature Geoscience 7.3 (2014): 158.

    Santer, Benjamin D., et al. "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." Nature Geoscience 10.7 (2017): 478.

    Risbey, James S., et al. "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase." Nature Climate Change 4.9 (2014): 835.

    Dai, Aiguo, et al. "Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability." Nature Climate Change 5.6 (2015): 555.

    Kosaka, Yu, and Shang-Ping Xie. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling." Nature 501.7467 (2013): 403.

    Hansen, James, et al. "Earth's energy imbalance and implications." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.

    Karl, Thomas R., et al. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus." Science (2015): aaa5632.

    Cowtan, Kevin, et al. "Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures." Geophysical Research Letters 42.15 (2015): 6526-6534.
    Thanks for posting all the papers that acknowledge the pause in global warming and admit that the climate models have failed. I was actually planning to do that but I couldn't have done it better.

    It doesn't impress me at all that they figure out what was wrong after the models failed. Climate models are incredibly accurate at predicting the past.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  56. #956

    Default

    "failed" or "a tiny bit off, but very correct still over all in the grand scheme of things"


    trololololololololllll

  57. #957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "Only Hope For Humanity Now Lies In Possibility They're Making All Of This Up"

    "GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them."

    https://www.theonion.com/climate-res...lie-1828171232
    Since you're now using The Onion as a reference is it safe to assume that you were just being satirical all along?
    This is quote worthy so I'm quoting it. heh
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  58. #958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "Only Hope For Humanity Now Lies In Possibility They're Making All Of This Up"

    "GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them."

    https://www.theonion.com/climate-res...lie-1828171232
    Since you're now using The Onion as a reference is it safe to assume that you were just being satirical all along?
    This is quote worthy so I'm quoting it. heh


  59. #959

    Default

    That really just shows how easy it is to fool these climate change deniers... They've believe anything that supports their conspiracies blindly and without any sort of thought into it.

  60. #960

    Default

    Here's some more onion on climate change:

    https://www.theonion.com/heavenly-au...-in-1819655089

    Heavenly Authorities Arrest God For Leaving Children In Overheating Planet

    10/16/17 10:35amSEE MORE: NEWS











    THE HEAVENS—Charging the supreme being with felony reckless endangerment, heavenly authorities placed the Lord our God, Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe, under arrest Monday for leaving His children trapped in an overheating planet. “While it’s possible for even the most attentive deity to momentarily forget how quickly a planet’s temperature can rise, that’s no excuse for such horrifying negligence,” said the archangel Selaphiel, noting that The Almighty had put not just one of his children at risk, but billions. “Frankly, we’re lucky we got there and pried open the atmosphere when we did or they would have all been gone in less than 100 years.” At press time, a tearful God said He had only left to run a brief errand just on the other side of the galaxy and said He would never forgive Himself.

  61. #961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's some more onion on climate change:

    https://www.theonion.com/heavenly-au...-in-1819655089

    Heavenly Authorities Arrest God For Leaving Children In Overheating Planet

    10/16/17 10:35amSEE MORE: NEWS











    THE HEAVENS—Charging the supreme being with felony reckless endangerment, heavenly authorities placed the Lord our God, Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe, under arrest Monday for leaving His children trapped in an overheating planet. “While it’s possible for even the most attentive deity to momentarily forget how quickly a planet’s temperature can rise, that’s no excuse for such horrifying negligence,” said the archangel Selaphiel, noting that The Almighty had put not just one of his children at risk, but billions. “Frankly, we’re lucky we got there and pried open the atmosphere when we did or they would have all been gone in less than 100 years.” At press time, a tearful God said He had only left to run a brief errand just on the other side of the galaxy and said He would never forgive Himself.
    I think all citations here on Trump and US politics should come from the Onion as well. Would make for better comedic reading. Albeit US politics is that anyway. Sometimes it would be hard to detect the difference without a link..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #962

    Default

    The fact that Trump and US Politics is less believable than the onion speaks volumes. We are in the satire now, and its not so funny.

  63. #963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Thanks for posting all the papers that acknowledge the pause in global warming and admit that the climate models have failed. I was actually planning to do that but I couldn't have done it better.

    It doesn't impress me at all that they figure out what was wrong after the models failed. Climate models are incredibly accurate at predicting the past.
    Thanks for demonstrating that you obviously did not bother to read any of those papers. This is rather odd behaviour because evidence provides those who understand it an opportunity to benefit; why people should choose not to take advantage of this opportunity is strange indeed.

    Anyway, here's some of what you missed:

    Most discrepancies between models and observations can therefore be explained by the state of the natural variability, incomplete or biased forcings, and observational limitations; a complete explanation requires a combination of all of these (Fig. 5). When the effects of short-term temperature variations such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), of volcanic aerosols and of solar variability are removed, the anthropogenically forced global warming signal has not decreased substantially.
    Source: Medhaug, Iselin, et al. "Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 41.


    The results do not eliminate the possibility that some individual models may overestimate past or future warming, but they show that the temperature response to forcing in the CMIP5 ensemble as a whole is consistent with the observed warming and observationally constrained TCR estimates, in particular when the coverage bias is taken into account.
    Source: Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled." Nature Geoscience 7.9 (2014): 651.


    We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations.
    Source: Schmidt, Gavin A., Drew T. Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis. "Reconciling warming trends." Nature Geoscience 7.3 (2014): 158.


    Internally driven contributions to the ‘warming slowdown’ arise from the transition to a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) in roughly 1999, and from changes in the phasing of other internal variability modes.
    Source: Santer, Benjamin D., et al. "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." Nature Geoscience 10.7 (2017): 478.


    These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
    Source: Risbey, James S., et al. "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase." Nature Climate Change 4.9 (2014): 835.


    In particular, the recent warming hiatus from 2000 to 2013 in observations can be primarily attributed to an IPO transition from a positive to a negative phase. Although it is difficult to predict the future evolution of the IPO, the recent history suggests that the IPO-induced cooling trend may have run its course and reverse soon. Should this happen, we will see accelerated global warming rates within the next few decades.
    Source: Dai, Aiguo, et al. "Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability." Nature Climate Change 5.6 (2015): 555.


    We conclude that the recent cooling of the tropical Pacific and hence the current hiatus are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. If so, the hiatus is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state.
    Source: Kosaka, Yu, and Shang-Ping Xie. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling." Nature 501.7467 (2013): 403.


    Planetary energy imbalance now is positive, substantial, and likely to increase as greenhouse gases and solar irradiance increase. Thus, despite year-to-year fluctuations, global temperature will increase this decade and there will be a substantial flux of energy into the ocean.
    Source: Hansen, James, et al. "Earth's energy imbalance and implications." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.


    In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.
    Source: Karl, Thomas R., et al. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus." Science (2015): aaa5632.


    The recent divergence between the models and the observations occurs af ter 1998, the period commonly associated with the so-called global warming “hiatus”. Several contributory factors to the divergence have been identified, including an increase in moderate volcanic eruptions, a reduction in solar activity, a decrease in stratospheric water vapor concentration, internal variability, and a bias due to the omission of the Arctic, which is warming more rapidly than projected by the models
    Source: Cowtan, Kevin, et al. "Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures." Geophysical Research Letters 42.15 (2015): 6526-6534.


    With respect to the "hiatus", I will leave you with one last figure and reference which explain why focusing on trends with decadal timescales--such as 1998-2012--can yield misleading results. It's from a commentary in a peer-reviewed journal so it's written in relatively plain English.


    Source: Risbey, James S., and Stephan Lewandowsky. "Climate science: The'pause'unpacked." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 37.

  64. #964

    Default The TRUTH. Why climate models can't be trusted

    [QUOTE=OffWhyte;900335]
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Thanks for posting all the papers that acknowledge the pause in global warming and admit that the climate models have failed. I was actually planning to do that but I couldn't have done it
    Thanks for demonstrating that you obviously did not bother to read any of those papers. This is rather odd behaviour because evidence provides those who understand it an opportunity to benefit; why people should choose not to take advantage of this opportunity is strange indeed.

    Anyway, here's some of what you missed:

    Most discrepancies between models and observations can therefore be explained by the state of the natural variability, incomplete or biased forcings, and observational limitations; a complete explanation requires a combination of all of these (Fig. 5). When the effects of short-term temperature variations such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), of volcanic aerosols and of solar variability are removed, the anthropogenically forced global warming signal has not decreased substantially.
    Source: Medhaug, Iselin, et al. "Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 41.


    The results do not eliminate the possibility that some individual models may overestimate past or future warming, but they show that the temperature response to forcing in the CMIP5 ensemble as a whole is consistent with the observed warming and observationally constrained TCR estimates, in particular when the coverage bias is taken into account.
    Source: Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled." Nature Geoscience 7.9 (2014): 651.


    We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations.
    Source: Schmidt, Gavin A., Drew T. Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis. "Reconciling warming trends." Nature Geoscience 7.3 (2014): 158.


    Internally driven contributions to the ‘warming slowdown’ arise from the transition to a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) in roughly 1999, and from changes in the phasing of other internal variability modes.
    Source: Santer, Benjamin D., et al. "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." Nature Geoscience 10.7 (2017): 478.


    These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
    Source: Risbey, James S., et al. "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase." Nature Climate Change 4.9 (2014): 835.


    In particular, the recent warming hiatus from 2000 to 2013 in observations can be primarily attributed to an IPO transition from a positive to a negative phase. Although it is difficult to predict the future evolution of the IPO, the recent history suggests that the IPO-induced cooling trend may have run its course and reverse soon. Should this happen, we will see accelerated global warming rates within the next few decades.
    Source: Dai, Aiguo, et al. "Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability." Nature Climate Change 5.6 (2015): 555.


    We conclude that the recent cooling of the tropical Pacific and hence the current hiatus are probably due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. If so, the hiatus is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state.
    Source: Kosaka, Yu, and Shang-Ping Xie. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling." Nature 501.7467 (2013): 403.


    Planetary energy imbalance now is positive, substantial, and likely to increase as greenhouse gases and solar irradiance increase. Thus, despite year-to-year fluctuations, global temperature will increase this decade and there will be a substantial flux of energy into the ocean.
    Source: Hansen, James, et al. "Earth's energy imbalance and implications." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.


    In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.
    Source: Karl, Thomas R., et al. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus." Science (2015): aaa5632.


    The recent divergence between the models and the observations occurs af ter 1998, the period commonly associated with the so-called global warming “hiatus”. Several contributory factors to the divergence have been identified, including an increase in moderate volcanic eruptions, a reduction in solar activity, a decrease in stratospheric water vapor concentration, internal variability, and a bias due to the omission of the Arctic, which is warming more rapidly than projected by the models
    Source: Cowtan, Kevin, et al. "Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures." Geophysical Research Letters 42.15 (2015): 6526-6534.


    With respect to the "hiatus", I will leave you with one last figure and reference which explain why focusing on trends with decadal timescales--such as 1998-2012--can yield misleading results. It's from a commentary in a peer-reviewed journal so it's written in relatively plain English.


    Source: Risbey, James S., and Stephan Lewandowsky. "Climate science: The'pause'unpacked." Nature 545.7652 (2017): 37.
    I don't mean to single out your responses for my TRUTH posts but your arguments are falling into obvious problems with climate modelling. Your post actually shows why climate models are unreliable, and the science is unreliable.

    Looks like there are a number of alibis as to why the climate models failed, and a couple of papers that say they didn't fail because the the temperature data is wrong. Which one is right? They cant all be right. So the scientific literature provides a shotgun approach to providing an excuse. This shows how cheap and easy it is to produce a paper purporting to know what the climate is doing.

    If they cant all be right most of them must be wrong.

    Not only that, the IPCC itself must think they're all wrong. In post 679 there's a video describing the new, lowered, climate model projections. If the models were accurate, why did the IPCC lower the projections?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-08-2018 at 05:16 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  65. #965
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    A couple days you were saying that some data was too consistent and that it was evidence that it was manufactured, and now you're saying that discrepancies in the data means that it can't be right. So which is it? Some climate data is too good for you, and some is too bad. I suspect that you may just use whatever argument you can think of to 'disprove' any data posted, even if it is inconsistent with past arguments.

    But by all means keep posting, after all logic hasn't stopped you yet.
    Last edited by seamusmcduffs; 27-08-2018 at 10:40 PM.

  66. #966

    Default The TRUTH. Another fraudulent climate change paper published in a journal.

    For those who aren't familiar with the process, scientific papers are published in journals. There is an expectation the papers are reviewed by experts capable of evaluating the validity of the paper before it is published. This is called "peer review". Scientists do research, write a paper then submit it to a journal for review and publication. The scientific community expects a high degree of professionalism in this process, and published papers should have a high degree of integrity and be free of flaws.

    Crops around the world are growing faster. This paper carefully avoids addressing this fact. Instead it focuses in on the possibility there is less of an overall zinc yield as a percentage of overall yield. It's a preposterous, ridiculous, deceptive analysis. The conclusions are that millions of people will suffer from the reduction in zinc. If climate change isn't a hoax, why is this paper being passed and published as peer reviewed science? It's nothing but fraud.

    Notice how the abstract carefully avoids the topic of overall crop yield..........

    "Impact of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition."

    Abstract

    Atmospheric CO2 is on pace to surpass 550 ppm in the next 30–80 years. Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions. We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production. We estimate that elevated CO2could cause an additional 175 million people to be zinc deficient and an additional 122 million people to be protein deficient (assuming 2050 population and CO2 projections). For iron, 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 are in countries with greater than 20% anaemia prevalence and would lose >4% of dietary iron. Regions at highest risk—South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—require extra precautions to sustain an already tenuous advance towards improved public health."

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  67. #967

    Default

    ^ are you basing that on what you read on The Onion?

  68. #968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I don't mean to single out your responses for my TRUTH posts but your arguments are falling into obvious problems with climate modelling. Your post actually shows why climate models are unreliable, and the science is unreliable.
    On the contrary, these papers illustrate the strengths of the scientific process: by encouraging a free and open evaluation of the evidence, by not clinging to dogma, by iteratively refining models, we inexorably converge to a deeper understanding of the universe. Such a process inevitably creates estimates that are not fully accurate but that's how we learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Looks like there are a number of alibis as to why the climate models failed, and a couple of papers that say they didn't fail because the the temperature data is wrong. Which one is right? They cant all be right. So the scientific literature provides a shotgun approach to providing an excuse. This shows how cheap and easy it is to produce a paper purporting to know what the climate is doing.

    If they cant all be right most of them must be wrong.
    Actually the possible explanations are not mutually exclusive. This isn't "Let's Make a Deal" where you can only choose what's behind one door.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Not only that, the IPCC itself must think they're all wrong. In post 679 there's a video describing the new, lowered, climate model projections. If the models were accurate, why did the IPCC lower the projections?
    That video is rife with mistakes, misunderstandings, and false conclusions. Here are just a few:

    “They have concluded now that the radiative warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated by about 50%.” Wrong, the paper in question does not conclude this at all. The paper actually says “Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93 °C (±0.13 °C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2 °C per decade.” The paper goes on to say that the estimate of human-induced warming and pre-2015 cumulative carbon emissions “are individually consistent with the CMIP5 ensemble.”

    “What caused a two-degree warming in the way we used to think now is understood to only cause one [degree].” Wrong, the paper does not conclude this at all. The narrator of the video clearly does not understand the figure he’s attempting to describe. The graph on the left shows temperature change relative to 1861-1880; the graph on the right shows that relative to 2010-2019. The climate response is the same; only the baselines are different.

    “What would have caused us to warm 3.5 degrees before we now realize would only have a 2.5 degree warming effect.” Again, completely wrong for the same reason: the narrator did not look at the graph.

    “Did I hear Canada wants to prosecute those who question climate science?” No, he did not hear this because it’s not true.

    “I say they try to arrest these scientists.” Really? So which side of the debate is actually interested in free and open enquiry?

    “The important bit in all of this is that literally every mainstream climate paper discussing human effect or estimating future temperatures or sea level rise now must be re-written.” Wrong, for multiple reasons the most obvious of which is that the paper does not actually provide new estimates of future temperatures or sea level changes. The narrator seems to be imagining the paper says something that it doesn't actually say.

    The main conclusion of this paper is actually this: based on their estimate of the remaining carbon budget it would require a linear decrease in net C02 emissions from today’s levels to net zero in the next forty years starting today in order to have a 2-in-3 chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This is indeed a different estimate of the CO2 budget than that of the IPCC but it still implies a huge global undertaking by any measure. The paper is not in any way, shape, or form a downward estimate of future human-caused warming.

  69. #969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    For those who aren't familiar with the process, scientific papers are published in journals. There is an expectation the papers are reviewed by experts capable of evaluating the validity of the paper before it is published. This is called "peer review". Scientists do research, write a paper then submit it to a journal for review and publication. The scientific community expects a high degree of professionalism in this process, and published papers should have a high degree of integrity and be free of flaws.

    Crops around the world are growing faster. This paper carefully avoids addressing this fact. Instead it focuses in on the possibility there is less of an overall zinc yield as a percentage of overall yield. It's a preposterous, ridiculous, deceptive analysis. The conclusions are that millions of people will suffer from the reduction in zinc. If climate change isn't a hoax, why is this paper being passed and published as peer reviewed science? It's nothing but fraud.

    Notice how the abstract carefully avoids the topic of overall crop yield..........

    "Impact of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition."

    Abstract

    Atmospheric CO2 is on pace to surpass 550 ppm in the next 30–80 years. Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions. We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production. We estimate that elevated CO2could cause an additional 175 million people to be zinc deficient and an additional 122 million people to be protein deficient (assuming 2050 population and CO2 projections). For iron, 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 are in countries with greater than 20% anaemia prevalence and would lose >4% of dietary iron. Regions at highest risk—South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—require extra precautions to sustain an already tenuous advance towards improved public health."

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
    It seems whenever you are faced with challenging concepts you immediately denounce them as fraudulent. This must make it difficult to learn.

    Actually, this one's not even that challenging. The important measure is not the global amount of iron, zinc, and protein in all the world's crops. Rather, it's the dietary availability of iron, zinc, and protein in the food that's eaten.

    In other words, if a crop doesn't contain any nutrients it doesn't matter how much of it can be grown; it just becomes empty calories.

  70. #970

    Default

    Skeptical movie on climate change. Covers some of the ground I've posted. Politics. Real scientists telling you what the advocates, and the media, won't.

    Learn the truth, so you're not fooled by the lies...........

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg&t=843s

  71. #971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I don't mean to single out your responses for my TRUTH posts but your arguments are falling into obvious problems with climate modelling. Your post actually shows why climate models are unreliable, and the science is unreliable.
    On the contrary, these papers illustrate the strengths of the scientific process: by encouraging a free and open evaluation of the evidence, by not clinging to dogma, by iteratively refining models, we inexorably converge to a deeper understanding of the universe. Such a process inevitably creates estimates that are not fully accurate but that's how we learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Looks like there are a number of alibis as to why the climate models failed, and a couple of papers that say they didn't fail because the the temperature data is wrong. Which one is right? They cant all be right. So the scientific literature provides a shotgun approach to providing an excuse. This shows how cheap and easy it is to produce a paper purporting to know what the climate is doing.

    If they cant all be right most of them must be wrong.
    Actually the possible explanations are not mutually exclusive. This isn't "Let's Make a Deal" where you can only choose what's behind one door.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Not only that, the IPCC itself must think they're all wrong. In post 679 there's a video describing the new, lowered, climate model projections. If the models were accurate, why did the IPCC lower the projections?
    That video is rife with mistakes, misunderstandings, and false conclusions. Here are just a few:

    “They have concluded now that the radiative warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated by about 50%.” Wrong, the paper in question does not conclude this at all. The paper actually says “Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93 °C (±0.13 °C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2 °C per decade.” The paper goes on to say that the estimate of human-induced warming and pre-2015 cumulative carbon emissions “are individually consistent with the CMIP5 ensemble.”

    “What caused a two-degree warming in the way we used to think now is understood to only cause one [degree].” Wrong, the paper does not conclude this at all. The narrator of the video clearly does not understand the figure he’s attempting to describe. The graph on the left shows temperature change relative to 1861-1880; the graph on the right shows that relative to 2010-2019. The climate response is the same; only the baselines are different.

    “What would have caused us to warm 3.5 degrees before we now realize would only have a 2.5 degree warming effect.” Again, completely wrong for the same reason: the narrator did not look at the graph.

    “Did I hear Canada wants to prosecute those who question climate science?” No, he did not hear this because it’s not true.

    “I say they try to arrest these scientists.” Really? So which side of the debate is actually interested in free and open enquiry?

    “The important bit in all of this is that literally every mainstream climate paper discussing human effect or estimating future temperatures or sea level rise now must be re-written.” Wrong, for multiple reasons the most obvious of which is that the paper does not actually provide new estimates of future temperatures or sea level changes. The narrator seems to be imagining the paper says something that it doesn't actually say.

    The main conclusion of this paper is actually this: based on their estimate of the remaining carbon budget it would require a linear decrease in net C02 emissions from today’s levels to net zero in the next forty years starting today in order to have a 2-in-3 chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This is indeed a different estimate of the CO2 budget than that of the IPCC but it still implies a huge global undertaking by any measure. The paper is not in any way, shape, or form a downward estimate of future human-caused warming.
    Your analysis is nonsense. Do more research. Try to avoid liar blogs.

    Maybe compare these two papers.......

    From 2011
    "Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1258

    From 2018
    "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031/
    Last edited by MrCombust; 28-08-2018 at 01:13 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #972
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    ^

    avoid the liar blogs?

    shouldn't that be avoid the blogging liar?

    in any case, if we did that we would miss our daily dose of humour in your posts and you would miss your audience...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  73. #973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Your analysis is nonsense. Do more research. Try to avoid liar blogs.

    Maybe compare these two papers.......

    From 2011
    "Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1258
    The public policy implication of this study: we need to take immediate and meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    From 2018
    "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031/
    The public policy implication of this study: we need to take immediate and meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming.

    Your point being?

  74. #974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Your analysis is nonsense. Do more research. Try to avoid liar blogs.

    Maybe compare these two papers.......

    From 2011
    "Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1258
    The public policy implication of this study: we need to take immediate and meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    From 2018
    "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031/
    The public policy implication of this study: we need to take immediate and meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming.

    Your point being?
    What do you think the ETA is for "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.0°C"?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #975

    Default The TRUTH. Miss climate change beauty pageant looking for contestants.........

    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans, you can count on me to bring you the latest developments in climate science.

    Girls wanting to bring attention to climate science, and make climate change sexy, can become a contestant, and maybe even become an ambassador for climate change!


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  76. #976

    Default

    ^ you keep bringing up weird points while ignoring the evidence being presented against your failed logic.... You go girl go!

  77. #977

    Default The TRUTH. Climate skeptics trying a new tactic

    Skeptics think NASA and NOAA are fudging the data. The heat island effect is biasing the data, and outright fudging for no reason is taking place. And the satellite data doesn't agree with the land based records.

    Some skeptics are looking at peak land temperatures. It stands to reason if we've had 150 years of global warming, the peaks should be getting higher too.

    This graph is from NOAA data courtesy of Dr. Roy Spencer..........
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/



    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  78. #978
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    ^Dr. Spencer must of had to work really hard to generate a chart like the one above.

    Let me count the ways. One, select a single month. Two, select a single city. Three, select only the maximum temperature. Voila, a chart with a flat trend line.

    This is called cherry-picking of data points to create a misleading impression at best or at worst engage in a deception.

    Click on this link and anyone can create charts showing the average, maximum and minimum temperatures for New York City between the years 1895 and 2017 and the trend line:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/t...trendyear=2018

    The long-term temperature trend for New York City is very consistent with large coastal cities at the same latitude. Close to 2 degrees C of warming since 1895. This is somewhat higher than the 1 degree C rise thus far in global land and ocean surface temperatures. So some of NYC's greater than average temperature increase may be attributable to the urban heat island effect.

  79. #979

    Default The TRUTH about renewable energy

    Fellow Albertans and Edmontonians......, attacking renewable energy isn't part of being skeptical about climate change, but when learning about climate change, you learn a thing or two about renewables. Renewables aren't what the climate change preachers pretend they are. Wind and solar is very expensive, is only available a few hours of the day, and it won't heat your home. Most price comparisons regarding wind and coal are completely fraudulent. If you, or anybody else really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions there are solutions that are far, far, more cost effective. The mantra being pushed on us has caused us to lose our way. It's time to stop listening to the doomsday preachers and make proper financial assessments.

    "Renewable energy – wind and solar – is a con game. The people we thought were the good guys – environmentalists – are up to their necks in dirty tricks. The billions of dollars spent on electricity every year are being used to enrich a gaggle of con men – politicians, environmentalists and the purveyors of renewable energy. Extensive lobbying and propaganda has convinced the public that it is a good idea to spend billions on dumb wind and solar energy. Dumb energy can’t be counted on because it comes and goes with the wind and clouds. Dumb energy is subsidized, overtly and sneakily. Dumb energy is financed by taxes and bigger electric bills. We have been sold the idea that cheap energy can be extracted from sunshine and wind. Energy can be extracted, but it is not cheap. Wind and solar energy are not cheap and have to be backed up by traditional electric generating plants, greatly increasing the cost. The facts and figures are in this book, in an easily-understood format. Wind and solar are often sold as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent climate change. But there are more effective and less expensive ways of reducing CO2 emissions than wind and solar. We all wish for miracles and want to believe in miracles. But wind and solar are dirty tricks, not miracles."

    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-08-2018 at 12:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #980
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Albertans and Edmontonians......, attacking renewable energy isn't part of being skeptical about climate change, but when learning about climate change, you learn a thing or two about renewables. Renewables aren't what the climate change preachers pretend they are. Wind and coal is very expensive, is only available a few hours of the day, and it won't heat your home. Most price comparisons regarding wind and coal are completely fraudulent. If you, or anybody else really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions there are solutions that are far, far, more cost effective. The mantra being pushed on us has caused us to lose our way. It's time to stop listening to the doomsday preachers and make proper financial assessments.

    "Renewable energy – wind and solar – is a con game. The people we thought were the good guys – environmentalists – are up to their necks in dirty tricks. The billions of dollars spent on electricity every year are being used to enrich a gaggle of con men – politicians, environmentalists and the purveyors of renewable energy. Extensive lobbying and propaganda has convinced the public that it is a good idea to spend billions on dumb wind and solar energy. Dumb energy can’t be counted on because it comes and goes with the wind and clouds. Dumb energy is subsidized, overtly and sneakily. Dumb energy is financed by taxes and bigger electric bills. We have been sold the idea that cheap energy can be extracted from sunshine and wind. Energy can be extracted, but it is not cheap. Wind and solar energy are not cheap and have to be backed up by traditional electric generating plants, greatly increasing the cost. The facts and figures are in this book, in an easily-understood format. Wind and solar are often sold as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent climate change. But there are more effective and less expensive ways of reducing CO2 emissions than wind and solar. We all wish for miracles and want to believe in miracles. But wind and solar are dirty tricks, not miracles."

    Other than the hilarious typo of coal instead of solar by you, this is all just Lies fom Liar Books.

  81. #981

    Default

    It's great when all of MrCombusts 'facts' get debunked, and he just ignores reality, and continues to post fiction.

    Slow clap

  82. #982

    Default The TRUTH. The Sierra club is upset with the Democratic party because

    they're backing away from climate change..........

    "The Democratic Party Has a Climate Change ProblemThe Democratic Party appears to be moving backward on climate action"

    "......the party as a national establishment seems to be moving backward, toward a policy that embraces a staid status quo rather than the kind of forward-thinking necessary to stop the climate crisis..........."

    https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/de...change-problem
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  83. #983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    they're backing away from climate change..........

    "The Democratic Party Has a Climate Change ProblemThe Democratic Party appears to be moving backward on climate action"

    "......the party as a national establishment seems to be moving backward, toward a policy that embraces a staid status quo rather than the kind of forward-thinking necessary to stop the climate crisis..........."

    https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/de...change-problem
    Politics? In a “truth” thread?

  84. #984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Albertans and Edmontonians......, attacking renewable energy isn't part of being skeptical about climate change, but when learning about climate change, you learn a thing or two about renewables. Renewables aren't what the climate change preachers pretend they are. Wind and coal is very expensive, is only available a few hours of the day, and it won't heat your home. Most price comparisons regarding wind and coal are completely fraudulent. If you, or anybody else really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions there are solutions that are far, far, more cost effective. The mantra being pushed on us has caused us to lose our way. It's time to stop listening to the doomsday preachers and make proper financial assessments.

    "Renewable energy – wind and solar – is a con game. The people we thought were the good guys – environmentalists – are up to their necks in dirty tricks. The billions of dollars spent on electricity every year are being used to enrich a gaggle of con men – politicians, environmentalists and the purveyors of renewable energy. Extensive lobbying and propaganda has convinced the public that it is a good idea to spend billions on dumb wind and solar energy. Dumb energy can’t be counted on because it comes and goes with the wind and clouds. Dumb energy is subsidized, overtly and sneakily. Dumb energy is financed by taxes and bigger electric bills. We have been sold the idea that cheap energy can be extracted from sunshine and wind. Energy can be extracted, but it is not cheap. Wind and solar energy are not cheap and have to be backed up by traditional electric generating plants, greatly increasing the cost. The facts and figures are in this book, in an easily-understood format. Wind and solar are often sold as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent climate change. But there are more effective and less expensive ways of reducing CO2 emissions than wind and solar. We all wish for miracles and want to believe in miracles. But wind and solar are dirty tricks, not miracles."

    Other than the hilarious typo of coal instead of solar by you, this is all just Lies fom Liar Books.
    Again, you seem to take the position that you’re somehow educating people. Look around you and note how few electric cars are on the road. How few people have solar panels on their roofs or windmills in their back yards. Everyone understands that many renewables have not yet reached a point of paying their way. However look at solar. In the 1970s it was neat useless and today it is becoming quite competitive. Recognizing the costs of coal burning (spreading mercury etc) is also a step towards full cost accounting of embedded methods that are cheap at one level but throw off costs onto other parts of society. Similar criticism should be leveled at renewables that have high upstream and downstream costs.

    However, everyone also knows that coal and gas weren’t exactly untouched by various regulatory supports and subsidies.

    What people also understand is the value of trying different technologies and the value of developing different technologies that might eventually create leaps forward in benefits to society or in leaps away from deleterious and detrimental impacts to society.
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2018 at 11:26 AM.

  85. #985

    Default The TRUTH. The worthlessness of climate models

    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans, I am reporting to you from Maui, Hawaii with the latest post.

    Climate models are supposed to accurately mimic the heat budget of the earth and predict temperatures 100 years from now. The heat budget of the earth is a chaotic system.

    Weather is also a chaotic system.

    They have been predicting a category 1 hurricane to hit Maui for my vacation. The eye of the storm hit this morning. My wife took our 2 year old to play in the surf. And why not? There was no wind, and no rain.

    It is surreal watching TV and the catastrophic predictions, while looking out the balcony at people strolling around the pool. In real time, the computer models were wrong. They can't even predict accurately minutes ahead. The media wants catastrophe, and that's what they feed us.

    Trusting climate models to predict accurately the chaotic heat budget of the earth 100 years into the future is nonsense. But the media feeds the public what gets attention, and so we hear the same thing every day. Catastrophe is coming.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  86. #986

    Default

    Hurricanes rarely have a serious effect on Hawaii. The volcanoes kill them before they land really.

    Meanwhile, Super Typhoon is about to hit Hong Kong, Major Hurricane Florence is about to hit the Carolinas, and its snowing in Edmonton.

    Enjoy Maui. Speak with some of the locals, and they'll let you know how climate change is affecting them.

  87. #987
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans, I am reporting to you from Maui, Hawaii with the latest post.

    Climate models are supposed to accurately mimic the heat budget of the earth and predict temperatures 100 years from now. The heat budget of the earth is a chaotic system.

    Weather is also a chaotic system.

    They have been predicting a category 1 hurricane to hit Maui for my vacation. The eye of the storm hit this morning. My wife took our 2 year old to play in the surf. And why not? There was no wind, and no rain.

    It is surreal watching TV and the catastrophic predictions, while looking out the balcony at people strolling around the pool. In real time, the computer models were wrong. They can't even predict accurately minutes ahead. The media wants catastrophe, and that's what they feed us.

    Trusting climate models to predict accurately the chaotic heat budget of the earth 100 years into the future is nonsense. But the media feeds the public what gets attention, and so we hear the same thing every day. Catastrophe is coming.
    even if what you are saying is true about what you are seeing/experiencing, your post only confirms you are still confusing weather and weather forecasting with climate and climate forecasting.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  88. #988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Albertans and Edmontonians......, attacking renewable energy isn't part of being skeptical about climate change, but when learning about climate change, you learn a thing or two about renewables. Renewables aren't what the climate change preachers pretend they are. Wind and coal is very expensive, is only available a few hours of the day, and it won't heat your home. Most price comparisons regarding wind and coal are completely fraudulent. If you, or anybody else really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions there are solutions that are far, far, more cost effective. The mantra being pushed on us has caused us to lose our way. It's time to stop listening to the doomsday preachers and make proper financial assessments.

    "Renewable energy – wind and solar – is a con game. The people we thought were the good guys – environmentalists – are up to their necks in dirty tricks. The billions of dollars spent on electricity every year are being used to enrich a gaggle of con men – politicians, environmentalists and the purveyors of renewable energy. Extensive lobbying and propaganda has convinced the public that it is a good idea to spend billions on dumb wind and solar energy. Dumb energy can’t be counted on because it comes and goes with the wind and clouds. Dumb energy is subsidized, overtly and sneakily. Dumb energy is financed by taxes and bigger electric bills. We have been sold the idea that cheap energy can be extracted from sunshine and wind. Energy can be extracted, but it is not cheap. Wind and solar energy are not cheap and have to be backed up by traditional electric generating plants, greatly increasing the cost. The facts and figures are in this book, in an easily-understood format. Wind and solar are often sold as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent climate change. But there are more effective and less expensive ways of reducing CO2 emissions than wind and solar. We all wish for miracles and want to believe in miracles. But wind and solar are dirty tricks, not miracles."

    Other than the hilarious typo of coal instead of solar by you, this is all just Lies fom Liar Books.
    Again, you seem to take the position that you’re somehow educating people. Look around you and note how few electric cars are on the road. How few people have solar panels on their roofs or windmills in their back yards. Everyone understands that many renewables have not yet reached a point of paying their way. However look at solar. In the 1970s it was neat useless and today it is becoming quite competitive. Recognizing the costs of coal burning (spreading mercury etc) is also a step towards full cost accounting of embedded methods that are cheap at one level but throw off costs onto other parts of society. Similar criticism should be leveled at renewables that have high upstream and downstream costs.

    However, everyone also knows that coal and gas weren’t exactly untouched by various regulatory supports and subsidies.

    What people also understand is the value of trying different technologies and the value of developing different technologies that might eventually create leaps forward in benefits to society or in leaps away from deleterious and detrimental impacts to society.
    This is disconnected from the gist of your post but "people understand" connotes a comprehension of energy issues and a concerted want to limit deleterious impacts. This is essentially wrong. People want to consume energy. Their habits belie that. Give them as many ways to consume energy and they will, using ever increasing devices, appliances, to consume that energy. With consumption, and non critical consumption being the problem because all consumption of any energy source is related to deleterious impacts. you can't manufacture and construct any alternate energy sources without that deleterious harm.


    heres something that interests me. The latest explosion of energy use is in tech devices. So that we know all have to be carrying around energy using tech devises whereas humanity seemed to function fine without these mere decades ago. I haven't had one tech device that came equipped solar powered. or with some alternate power source or design. We have all this superfluous energy use and in a tech product that ironically is not very tech in terms of energy consumption (could be a lot better) I mean I have a watch that doesn't require a battery. Its powered by light. But "smart" phones. Forget it. The industry isn't requiring it, consumers aren't requiring it, all I every hear is how people want a more powerful battery, more features, bigger screens, more energy consumption.

    The reality is we're energy addicts. We're literally conditioned to mainline it in our veins, the more energy the better.

    The unfortunate aspect of energy use is that the paradigm is probably identical to that of transportation. Build and provide more roads and people and society will just fill those.

    So that whatever added alternate energies are being added to the grid these are just mopped up by increasing use and by an industrial paradigm that worships at the foot of consumption. Our models are all wrong. As long as we are a consumer driven economy we begat copious consuming. Exponentially occurring.
    Last edited by Replacement; 13-09-2018 at 08:58 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  89. #989
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    ^This is seen in almost every industry and why it's incredibly unlikely we can invent our way into being green. Technology can't solve everything. It has to come from government intervention and a lifestyle change.

    Making cars more fuel efficient didn't lead to a reduction in fuel consumption, but instead led to people buying bigger cars and driving farther.

  90. #990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^This is seen in almost every industry and why it's incredibly unlikely we can invent our way into being green. Technology can't solve everything. It has to come from government intervention and a lifestyle change.

    Making cars more fuel efficient didn't lead to a reduction in fuel consumption, but instead led to people buying bigger cars and driving farther.
    Yep, we need paradigm shifts, major, as much as we need alternate energy or energy efficiency.


    I recall one of the funnier exchanges here about my preference to wash dishes by hand. Put enough water in sink to wash/rinse. Wash by hand. I figure this to be more enjoyable (especially in winter with hot water) and peaceful and zen like. Nearly everybody argued dishwashers are better, cited dishwasher industry produced studies etc and nearly everybody uses a dishwasher. Without really adding in the power costs, the manufacturing costs, the repair costs, the replacement costs. I'm using the same stainless steel sink, same faucet, that was original in the house and installed 40yrs ago. Still does the job. I would have had 4-5 broken down dishwashers in that time. A bit disconnected but a bit of a parable on non necessary energy and appliance use. We even, as a society use appliances when benefit is negligible, or not had at all.

    ps the broken down dishwasher is just storage now. I should just take it out and construct a roll out cabinet in its place. Or repurpose something to use.
    Last edited by Replacement; 13-09-2018 at 09:51 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  91. #991
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    ^

    reading your dishwasher parable made me think about everyone that uses high-speed fibre optic networks and connections to a wireless router networked to a cable box and a big screen tv to listen to am radio...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  92. #992
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    In every single thing you buy, there are exernalities that aren't paid for by the consumer because its not a direct production cost. Environmental degredation, resource depletion, air pollution are all costs that are hard to to quantify and easy to ignore.

    Which is the whole purpose of certain taxes, and some forms of carbon taxes.

    https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/...ERNALITIES.pdf

    Of course there's still plenty of debate on how to actually quantify these externalities.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

  93. #993

    Default The TRUTH. The next climate summit, COP24, is coming up.

    UN executives fly around the world (with giant CO2 footprints) to exotic locations trying to promote the latest "agreements". The agreements usually involve telling other people they shouldn't be flying around the world, and rich nations giving poor nations billions of dollars with the UN as the arbiter of wealth transfer. The latest meeting was in Bangkok as a lead up to COP24 in Poland 3 months from now.

    The Bangkok meeting was to lay the groundwork for the meeting in Poland. As usual, no progress was made. The UN endlessly laments the lack of commitment from rich nations and is still waiting for the 100 billion dollars needed to ............ somehow help with climate change.

    "An international meeting in Bangkok fell short of its aim of completing fruitful preparations to help an agreement be reached in December on guidelines for implementing the 2015 Paris climate change agreement.

    Harjeet Singh, climate policy manager for ActionAid International, said that a vital component of the Paris agreement is for wealthy nations to provide financial assistance to developing countries as they fight natural disasters brought by climate change.
    But he said wealthy and developed countries “led by the United States and including countries such as Australia, Japan and even the European Union” refused to clearly show “how much money they are going to provide and how that is going to be counted.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-climate-talks
    Last edited by MrCombust; 14-09-2018 at 07:21 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  94. #994
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    People being hypocrites and inefficient does not negate science and facts, surprisingly enough.

  95. #995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans, I am reporting to you from Maui, Hawaii with the latest post.

    Climate models are supposed to accurately mimic the heat budget of the earth and predict temperatures 100 years from now. The heat budget of the earth is a chaotic system.

    Weather is also a chaotic system.

    They have been predicting a category 1 hurricane to hit Maui for my vacation. The eye of the storm hit this morning. My wife took our 2 year old to play in the surf. And why not? There was no wind, and no rain.

    It is surreal watching TV and the catastrophic predictions, while looking out the balcony at people strolling around the pool. In real time, the computer models were wrong. They can't even predict accurately minutes ahead. The media wants catastrophe, and that's what they feed us.

    Trusting climate models to predict accurately the chaotic heat budget of the earth 100 years into the future is nonsense. But the media feeds the public what gets attention, and so we hear the same thing every day. Catastrophe is coming.
    It would be better if you'd taken the family to the Carolinas to play in the surf.

  96. #996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans, I am reporting to you from Maui, Hawaii with the latest post. Climate models are supposed to accurately mimic the heat budget of the earth and predict temperatures 100 years from now. The heat budget of the earth is a chaotic system.Weather is also a chaotic system. They have been predicting a category 1 hurricane to hit Maui for my vacation. The eye of the storm hit this morning. My wife took our 2 year old to play in the surf. And why not? There was no wind, and no rain. It is surreal watching TV and the catastrophic predictions, while looking out the balcony at people strolling around the pool. In real time, the computer models were wrong. They can't even predict accurately minutes ahead. The media wants catastrophe, and that's what they feed us.Trusting climate models to predict accurately the chaotic heat budget of the earth 100 years into the future is nonsense. But the media feeds the public what gets attention, and so we hear the same thing every day. Catastrophe is coming.
    It would be better if you'd taken the family to the Carolinas to play in the surf.
    The simulations were wrong about hurricane Florence too.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  97. #997

    Default

    go on, which simulations were wrong and how were they wrong?

  98. #998
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,649

    Default

    ^ ^^

    it doesn't matter that they may have been wrong or which ones they were for maui or for the carolinas. they would have weather forecasts and not climate forecasts in either case.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  99. #999

    Default

    It goes along with MrCombusted flawed theory that climate models/simulations are wrong. They aren't. They are simulations, and models of what might occur should certain trends continue, but all look at different variables, and have different ways of calculation....

    When you look at several different climate models or simulations..... they all show one similar thing, the earth is warming... and it's directly related to human activity, and specifically, CO2

    Same with hurricane forecasting. Several different models or simulations are looked at. They predict storm track and intensity, and each have their own ways of calculations and variables. When forecasters give predictions, they do it based on the average of several computer models...

    Understanding how these things works isn't too hard, but it's quite easy to doubt them, if you dont have a decent understanding of how they work, or what they represent.
    Last edited by Medwards; 17-09-2018 at 02:06 PM.

  100. #1000

    Default The TRUTH. Glaciers melting due to soot deposits, not warming.

    This paper suggests glaciers are melting due to black soot deposits on them, not warming. Again, this brand of science will never be published in the media...............

    "End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon

    Significance

    The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15216
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •