The DnD Sanctuary

General => DnD Central => Topic started by: Banned Member on 2014-01-10, 14:07:05

Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-10, 14:07:05
It's official -- Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan) has frozen over...
Yahoo! UK & Ireland News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/official-hell-frozen-over-162307501.html) and BBC Newcastle
Title: Re: Anthropomorphic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-10, 15:16:40
Niagara Falls (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/falls) have frozen over!..
The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/visual-arts/niagara-falls-freezes-over-as-mercury-hits-37c-1-3263561), BBC
Title: Re: Anthropomorphic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-01-10, 15:55:54
Quote
Anthropomorphic Global Warming

Global warming shaped like a human? Bollocks!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-10, 16:01:34
Sorry, mended.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-10, 16:02:26
Global warming shaped like a human? Bollocks!
Nah... Shaped like bollocks!;)
:D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2014-01-10, 20:04:12
Worst linguist ever.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-10, 22:46:40
Anthropogenic Global Warming  ---  Man-Made Climate Change --- Man-Made Global Warming ......

Pick a name......Any name......

The Man-Made Global Warming Propaganda BS stinks of   HOAX & SCAM    (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/pileOshit01.gif)   no matter how high you pile it, nor what name you call it.

It has for years.....

Quote from: The Australian  http://tinyurl.com/lt5tpng 
......It's nothing but an elephant trap, devised by hardcore environmentalists, shyster politicians, rent-seeking businesses and grant-troughing activist scientists to get everyone bogged down in trivial "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments about global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree......

........What should concern every one of us far more, surely, is the way that in the name of saving the planet so much corruption has been embedded, so much money wasted, and so much public trust abused - all of it at our expense......


It's Settled Science, a term often used to cut off debate, by those who can't win the debate without voodoo science, like using the race card &  screaming at the top of their lungs you're a RACIST!!!

Well, do you think it's 'settled science', or do you think it's just a 'SCAM' defined by a Voodoo Science Religious Sect?



Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sanguinemoon on 2014-01-15, 02:59:20
Nah... Shaped like bollocks!;)

You beat me to it? :irked:
you're a RACIST!!!

That's actually no stupider than trying to disprove decades of research based on a local climate event, or rightests claiming "Polar Vortex" was invented for the cold snap in the eastern half of the US (despite the fact the term first appeared in 1853...) , while we in some of the western states actually have above normal temps (which  doesn't prove climate any more then the former.)

The question of why science has become politicized is begged. Could it possibly be the religious component of  GOP lobbying against evolution, while trying to deny more than century of fossil evidence and lobbying by petroleum industry against decades of data?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-15, 04:08:31
......The question of why science has become politicized is begged. Could it possibly be the religious component of  GOP lobbying against evolution, while trying to deny more than century of fossil evidence and lobbying by petroleum industry against decades of data?


I'd say that could possibly account for between 15 & 20% of the politicization, but most probably the bulk of the reasons this issue has been so politicized lies elsewhere, for various other grounds, & on more than one side of any political spectrum. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-01-15, 22:16:40
Anybody here been following the "Spirit of Mawson" ship of fools story? This was a classic, a bunch of warmist "scientists" chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to, amongst other things, see how much sea-ice has been melting down there. The problem is that the sea-ice refused to cooperate, it trapped their ship and they had to be rescued by helicopter. Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations. Interesting story, makes for good reading, I've been following it on the "discredited" WUWT blog.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-16, 00:14:29

........Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations........


That's why, & it has been well documented, why they needed to change the name of their midway side-show from ''Global Warming" to a more general, all encompassing, can't go wrong moniker of "Climate Change".

Hell, even I believe in Climate Change, to the extent that Climate Change is a naturally occurring cycle.....a cycle that can take many years to go from one point to another.

Now, when the radically extremest left saw that too many people like myself were aboard with Climate Change ----  but we didn't subscribe to man-made Climate Change like they Gregorian-ly chanted too ---- so, they demanded it's name had to be changed again

to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change this time, with it's 
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hippies3.gif)   
more radical sphincter groups adopting the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis.......dude. 

             (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgSn4sVO.jpg&hash=acf547184989f8b7702757b40dea8d04" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/gSn4sVO.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-01-16, 01:12:40

That's actually no stupider than trying to disprove decades of research based on a local climate event, or rightests claiming "Polar Vortex" was invented for the cold snap in the eastern half of the US (despite the fact the term first appeared in 1853...) , while we in some of the western states actually have above normal temps (which  doesn't prove climate any more then the former.)

And so did most of Europe for example.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-01-16, 01:15:55

Anybody here been following the "Spirit of Mawson" ship of fools story? This was a classic, a bunch of warmist "scientists" chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to, amongst other things, see how much sea-ice has been melting down there. The problem is that the sea-ice refused to cooperate, it trapped their ship and they had to be rescued by helicopter. Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations. Interesting story, makes for good reading, I've been following it on the "discredited" WUWT blog.

Holy shit that's Glenn Beck level of spinning the story :faint:
The sea ice didn't 'refuse to cooperate', instead it cooperated with the wind blowing it into the bay, where it compacted and trapped everything in the way.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2014-01-16, 06:59:57
Global warming is the wrong (and exlusively English) term for a real and measurable process. In the 70's and 80's it was called the greenhouse effect. Any denialists of that here? The greenhouse effect does not lead up to uniform soothing warming, but to chaotic turmoil, like a boiling kettle. Somehow everybody forgot this in the end of the 90's, when the issue became politicised.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-01-16, 09:09:52
The greenhouse effect is what keeps us from freezing to death. You'd still have to add a qualifier, like accelerated greenhouse effect.

As for the term being exclusively English--I know a few other terms to describe the process, like planetary warming and climatic warming, but global warming is definitely used in many other languages as well.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2014-01-16, 09:16:02

The greenhouse effect is what keeps us from freezing to death. You'd still have to add a qualifier, like accelerated greenhouse effect.
Well, of course, the "man-made" aspect there is the effect of freons, CO2, and other industrial or artificial additives. Ozone depletion was real, and "global warming" to me is the exact same discussion. Just the decade is different. Nobody denied ozone depletion or accused it of bad science, did they?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-16, 09:43:46
Yup. No.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sanguinemoon on 2014-01-16, 11:17:50
Not exactly on topic, but here's an actual 4th science test from a Christian school in South Carolina.

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/creationist-science-test.jpg (wasn't sure how to insert an image from another site [img=xxxx} didn't work )

If this what they're teaching children now, it goes a long way to explain the ignorance.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-01-16, 11:44:01
[img]http://etc[/img]

It's that way on pretty much any forum except My Opera. I could add compatibility for the My Opera style, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-16, 12:18:50
..wasn't sure how to..
See https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=6.0
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-01-16, 12:43:21
We also have a help page (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=help), which after following a couple of links will land you here (http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Basic_Bulletin_Board_Codes).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-16, 14:08:34
Yup, and it's definitely anthropogenic! ;)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-01-25, 12:15:27
Someone calls somebody "climate deniers" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM&list=PLrFGHFaixQlUagHrYAzHxVRAfoYkoTLrY), I'm not sure what they think when doing that...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2014-01-25, 12:32:49
There used to be global warming deniers. Now that they changed the term to "climate change", there are climate deniers. Neither of the terms makes sense to me, but in either case deniers live on the principle "I deny, therefore I think."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-01-25, 13:22:40
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fcold.png&hash=f7d610e56db3394fac7ebf90b692fad7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png) (http://xkcd.com/1321/)
Title: England and Wales after the Antarctic has melted
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-02-21, 16:31:55
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climateandfuel.com%2Fpics%2Fmapukxy.JPG&hash=6668251c3453081d3b25cf7bf4b6c3b7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.climateandfuel.com/pics/mapukxy.JPG)www.climateandfuel.com
:o
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-02-21, 20:36:32
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Flrg%2F27%2F2758%2FJI6TD00Z.jpg&hash=beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/27/2758/JI6TD00Z.jpg)

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-02-22, 00:27:03
No Great Loss (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg9442#msg9442) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sanguinemoon on 2014-02-22, 04:03:20

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Flrg%2F27%2F2758%2FJI6TD00Z.jpg&hash=beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/27/2758/JI6TD00Z.jpg)



Quite right. An often overlooked problem of rising sea levels is having your hair chewed by swans. Although funny at first, I can see how that can get annoying quickly.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Colonel Rebel on 2014-02-27, 04:33:45
Ah, yes, this old-whored-out thread......

Anyway, if you all care to take a gander at Josh's FB page, you'll find that DANBOZO/DANBUZO has survived the apocalypse.

He sends his regards via his blog, apparently......

Brace yourselves.....



















(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/564699_10200720757501397_419468896_n.jpg?dl=1)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-02-27, 07:06:16
Hey, maybe Josh can find Bantay v1.0 thru v29.0 in his FB ....... wouldn't that be sweet! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)

                               (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS2RyuYd.jpg&hash=39df96132451e71b807e4a90b89eb898" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/S2RyuYd.jpg)


Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-02-27, 08:58:25
Do you think that our Josh is related to the son of a nun?

Quote
1 After Moses, the servant of the LORD, had died, the LORD said to Moses' aide Joshua, son of Nun:
2 Moses my servant is dead. So now, you and the whole people with you, prepare to cross the Jordan to the land that I will give the Israelites.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-02, 13:28:29

Saharan sand pours onto England. The radio presenter's said it was reported by DEFRA and connected to the Climate Change (sic, with capitals;).
"It was from 2thousand blabla pages report"!
Great! How many pages did the General Relativity thing consist of?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-04, 07:35:04
MPs criticise BBC for 'false balance' in climate change coverage (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage)
Quote from: The Guardian, Wednesday 2 April 2014
Editors of the Radio 4 Today programme and other BBC news teams have been criticised by MPs for giving political opinions about climate change and scientific fact the same weight of coverage.

Retrieved via http://www.mediauk.com/radio/news
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-04-04, 15:39:55
For what it's worth: Chicago has recorded its coldest winter since recordings began here. The four Winter months (December, January, February and March) averaged 22F. In that time, we had several days of zero or below F days, enough snow to build an impressive snow fort and a desire to speed things up on global-- or at least local-- warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-04, 15:46:05
I just yesterday watched a film which set's background is as the following: OF COURSE it was Global Warming (who doubts!), and some smart arse invented a cooling machine, which eventually reverted the "Warming" to its opposite -- everybody died (except for those characters, of course).
They seem to play with it as if it's a done deal, eh?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-04, 19:30:37

For what it's worth: Chicago has recorded its coldest winter since recordings began here. The four Winter months (December, January, February and March) averaged 22F. In that time, we had several days of zero or below F days, enough snow to build an impressive snow fort and a desire to speed things up on global-- or at least local-- warming.

At the same time Europe had one of the mildest winters on record.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: jax on 2014-04-04, 21:09:08

Global warming is the wrong (and exlusively English) term for a real and measurable process. In the 70's and 80's it was called the greenhouse effect. Any denialists of that here? The greenhouse effect does not lead up to uniform soothing warming, but to chaotic turmoil, like a boiling kettle. Somehow everybody forgot this in the end of the 90's, when the issue became politicised.


Quite. "Climate Change" is older than "Global Warming" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm). More importantly Global Warming doesn't scan well in Norwegian. "Global Oppvarming" just sounds silly, with the two 'O's competing. "Klimaendringer" on the other is easy to pronounce and sounds swell.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-04-04, 21:32:59
I wonder, with all the carbon taxing, & carbon trading schemes around the world, except for redistributing a lot of wealth, how has it in any way affected the global temperature?

Ah, yes it has they will say, & all the models say that due to our swift actions to lower our collective carbon footy prints, in about 90-160 years we should be reaping the preliminary benefits of all our tomfoolery decisive accomplishments --- The planet should cool by - .003C (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bs010.gif)

I figure at just about that time the King will be sporting a new 3 piece suit.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOX7QvJ8.jpg&hash=1df452a8d7fb7761a12113dae3dcf834" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/OX7QvJ8.jpg)

BTW you fools on the hill (& just about everywhere else) -- The Long Debate is Long Over,  (http://theconsensusproject.com/) or didn't you already know it??!?

Mankind's next challenges -- after taming Mother Nature, these should be a walk in the park for us almighty humans -- We will make Hurricanes & Cyclones change course, make Twisters twist in reverse effectively stopping them in their tracks, stopping Earthquakes from quaking, stopping Rip currents from ripping, stop Mudslides from sliding .................................................................

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3rqUzMu.jpg&hash=a7b27bc296775988a636a34af433e4c2" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/3rqUzMu.jpg)

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoSaJSxg.jpg&hash=806595595018dfe858b1ffb51760c79b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/oSaJSxg.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-05, 20:44:40
You think, SmileyFaze , that climate changing is some leftist, european, (maybe even socialist) attack against the American way of life.
You're wrong, it isn't, it's just a fact.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-05, 20:51:17
No.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: tt92 on 2014-04-05, 21:24:28
I'm not making up my mind until rjh sums it up in his usual incisive manner.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-05, 21:26:33
I'm not making up my mind until rjh sums it up in his usual incisive manner.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.42;msg=15597)

Smart move...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-04-05, 22:42:39
For the record, I don't doubt for one minute that the climate is changing. It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet. It will continue to do that long after we're a historic footnote-- provided there's anybody to note the history then.

What I DO doubt is the effect we have on the global climate, or indeed can have on the climate. I really think we give ourselves too much credit for being able to make changes for good or for evil, and further I have an idea that the jury is still out on what, exactly, is driving climate change. We're like an ant on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, trying to say we understand it and that we have power to change it. I think just maybe we're actually a long way from being able to understand it or make meaningful changes.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-04-06, 00:30:40
For the record, I don't doubt for one minute that the climate is changing. It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet.........
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)
                                                                                (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bullseye 75x56.gif)

.....It will continue to do that long after we're a historic footnote-- provided there's anybody to note the history then.......
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)

The last Ice Age (see below) lasted 80+ Thousand Years or so in our method of time keeping.

Hell, we don't have any bona fide documentation on where the Egyptians found the architectural knowledge used to devise the Pyramids, & that's only a few thousand years back. The only thing we have is a plethora of theories.

I doubt any remains of our existence will last anything near as long as an Ice Age.

Nor will any method devised to recount our blip on the lines of time, by this most recent incarnation of mankind (ours), survive a similar journey thru time.

Those living prior to the last Ice Age event left nothing enduring for us to know anything about them, so I'd gather the same outcome would most probably repeat.

Quote from:      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period    
....The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.....


What I DO doubt is the effect we have on the global climate, or indeed can have on the climate. I really think we give ourselves too much credit for being able to make changes for good or for evil, and further I have an idea that the jury is still out on what, exactly, is driving climate change. We're like an ant on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, trying to say we understand it and that we have power to change it. I think just maybe we're actually a long way from being able to understand it or make meaningful changes.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)

All through society there are so called leaders afield,  that need to devise methods to prolong & legitimatize their own worth, importance, & existence ........ especially politicians, & those that see the opportunity to create wealth from those less educated, & easily convinced that toadstools taste like decadent fudge.

Mankind's naive belief that it can overcome anything in it's habitat (even it's own mortality), though impressively ambitious at times, is in this case simply nothing more than over-ambitious naivety ---- at our $$ expense $$.


Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-06, 07:27:15
It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet.

Yes and what's interesting is that you believe that because scientist tells you so but when the same scientists tells you that your car (consider it as a metaphor for human activity, if you prefer) is doing it, it seems that the same scientists turned suddenly into idiots...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-04-06, 10:01:53
.....it seems that the same scientists turned suddenly into idiots.....


Far from being idiots, no....they're quite adept, but unfortunately, they're just more wrong than right on this political issue, but just like the politicians they serve, spot-on with how to strum up the funding.

Consensus = General Agreement

If a consensus means they will get the grants & funding, come hell or high water, a consensus the world  will get -----  And, as in politics, the majority of their fellow scientists in this case is a proof positive victory over strong disagreement.

Those that disagree don't & won't concede though, & they will never go away, much to the chagrin of their victorious opposition ----- an opposition, who unfortunately for them, have yet to prove positive that their theories are anywhere near correct.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-06, 13:35:39
If a consensus means they will get the grants & funding,

That's the problem when science is done with private funds... scientists will "discover" whatever those who pay wants or needs. Same goes with lawyers and jurisconsults. But that's the joy of capitalism, isn't it? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sparta on 2014-04-06, 14:02:42
Nella fantasia ( in My imagination )

if Techs can create an Artificial Mini Sun , then orbits that in outer space .

to Make the World always Day ( There is no Night )

Plants will always Produces O2 .

and grow faster .

to cool down the Heat in Earth .

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2014-04-06, 14:51:15

if Techs can create an Artificial Mini Sun , then orbits that in outer space .

to Make the World always Day ( There is no Night )

No need for that, just blast the moon. :bomb:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-06, 20:02:10
Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-06, 20:31:42
Bel, now we have a "non-profit" global 'official' monopoly - not private funding.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-06, 23:22:29

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Colonel Rebel on 2014-04-07, 00:24:42


Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-07, 00:30:09



Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:

Absolutely not, I'm just setting him up for another round of point & laugh :right:
Don't tell him though :sst:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-07, 02:30:20
Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget. Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-04-07, 14:34:26
RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-04-07, 16:59:19
There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

I get my view from "Duck Dynasty."

Call me in 200 years for early results.

Do experts ever disagree?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-07, 19:51:25

Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget.

You don't seem to know what 'backing up your claims' means.


Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?

Evidence? Who needs evidence if you can just bloviate the same crap again.
Even if your claim was true, how does that invalidate anything?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-07, 19:55:53

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

In other words, holy crap we know more now than we did in the 1970s. Well, except the Howies of this world.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2014-04-07, 20:22:50

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)


Yea. And in the 60's before that there was talk of detonating nukes over the poles to melt ice and warm the planet. Of course then that was seen as a good thing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-04-07, 20:38:02
Do experts ever disagree?


I'll answer your question with 2 other questions.

If you were a scientist, & knew that disagreeing with the so called 'consensus' would subject you to scorn, famine, & economic grief if you disagreed ...... would you disagree? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)

If you were a scientist, & knew that agreeing with the so called 'consensus' would place you in the harmonious  mainstream flow of grants & various other forms of funding to further investigate you life's work & pet theories, & added to that be given the ability to have your journals favorably fast-tracked thru peer-review as long as you join in their so called 'consensus' ....... would you agree?(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-08, 01:34:50
Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-08, 08:06:40

Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P

Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Even if that claim had any credibility ( it was a prediction from a short term trend, which was dubious even at the time,  and there was no consent on it either ) - how on earth does the fact that some scientists were wrong 40 years ago have any bearing on what' happening now?
Do you finally understand the question or do I need to dumb it down even more?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 08:22:20
In other words, holy crap we know more now than we did in the 1970s. Well, except the Howies of this world.

On top of which, thanks to better filters and such on coal plants I believe we've mostly actually dealt with aerosols.

But more important: they did in fact know better (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 10:54:34
Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refutes a related myth that publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming due to increased carbon dioxide were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.
What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 11:35:53
What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?

Grammatically, perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the monstrous size, nothing. I went into enough detail to show that everything lines up, but no further.

http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/
Code: [Select]
[S [NP This graphic][VP [V summarizes][NP [N data][that-clause [Subord that] [VP [V refutes] [NP a related myth[that-clause [Subord that] [NP publications now supporting the scientific consensus [that-clause [Subord that] [NP the world][VP is warming due to increased carbon dioxide]]] [VP were predicting in the 1970s [that-clause that the world would cool.]]]]]]]]]


(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fpolymathicmonkey.smugmug.com%2Fphotos%2Fi-TFL2xcM%2F0%2FO%2Fi-TFL2xcM.png&hash=cec4aef876e4973bf34fbceb15e7b2c1" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://polymathicmonkey.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFL2xcM/0/O/i-TFL2xcM.png) (http://polymathicmonkey.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFL2xcM/0/O/i-TFL2xcM.png)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 11:49:32
Well, I guessed on that. (Dude, the dissection looks even more unbearable!:lol:)
Anyway, people who use such constructions should be shot on sight.:D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 12:04:02
Nah, they should hire editors (and pay them properly). Even something as simple as splitting it up in two works wonders:

This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 12:39:53
And punctuation - perhaps surprisingly for many Brits - can help a lot.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 12:46:49
Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.
Maybe the thought behind that monster phrase was to shift the actual semantic accent grammatically off the "cooling" - as being deemed of a false idea.
Noteworthy, Russian rules for much more commas in order to separate clauses and stuff, which makes it easier to read.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 13:08:56
That's my fault. I inadvertently added some duplication. I was just trying to show how much you can potentially achieve without rewriting. I actually meant to write something more like this:

Quote
This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting the opposite in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 13:15:12
You forgot "due to increased carbon dioxide":P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 13:33:47
I left it out on purpose.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 13:47:44
What purpose was that?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-08, 14:23:52
For one thing, it should probably be something like increased carbon dioxide concentrations or levels. But mostly I think it just makes the sentence inelegant without adding much of value. You can always toss it elsewhere in the text if you think it's vital.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-08, 14:30:33
It makes it pertaining to this thread, dude!:cheers:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-04-08, 19:35:33
I will acknowledge validity (if only in part) on a single (1) aspect of Anthropogenic Global Warming claims. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/secretrc9.gif)

Deforestation. 

When forests are cut, burnt, & bulldozed under their ability to sequester CO2 is effectively eliminated, & that combined with the complete loss of Oxygen production could cause a natural imbalance. Remaining plantlife will grow larger & thrive due to a temporary increase of CO2, & as a result eventually produce higher levels of Oxygen ...... Mother Natures 4.5 Billion Year Balancing Act. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)

Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?

I doubt it, but the Chicken Littles of this world will probably think so. 

(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance001.gif)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance002.gif)   (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAPoTk5y.jpg&hash=e5a88e6f1027af4243f05c43a96969e8" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/APoTk5y.jpg)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance001.gif)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance002.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2014-04-09, 10:19:25
There are many ways to increase CO2 and to reduce O2 at the same time. :left:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-04-09, 10:33:01
Nuke Scotland?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-09, 11:17:14
Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?
Deforestation is a major issue of the human impact.
irRegardless of "temperatures".
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-09, 21:38:32
Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival. However one needs to warn you that if many of the survivors are from Glasgow you better start packing. Anyway I would probably be out in the countryside or hills on my swanky new outdoor boots.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-10, 13:12:46
Heard on BBC Three counties, then found some news elsewhere:
Quote from: Independent
A member of the House of Lords raised eyebrows in the chamber on Wednesday, when he said there could be a link between global warming and the large amount of baked beans consumed in the UK, causing people to produce so-called "smelly emissions".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-smelly-emissions-from-baked-beans-contribute-to-global-warming-viscount-simon-asks-energy-minister-9249179.html
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-14, 09:47:05
Oakdale quotes here (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1185.msg41586#msg41586) a statistician with crap logic deployed to further some hazy agenda. How does the statistician's argument go?

Quote from: William M. Briggs

...draw for yourself a standard x-y plot, with x the time and y the measure of interest, say temperature. At some early time point, place a dot for the first "temperature". And at some later point, place a second dot higher than the first.

Now I ask you: was there a trend in the data?

What point is this supposed to make? Quite likely, it's supposed to confound us with the paradox of the heap. We speak of statistical trends, but two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, are they? Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.

Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends? Clearly, the argument has made no point whatsoever thus far. The statistician's reasoning continues,

Quote from: William M. Briggs

This is why hypothesis testing is so toxic. Once a wee p-value is spotted, "randomness" or "chance" are rejected as causes and whatever other idea the researcher had in mind is said to be the cause. This is wrong in every possible way. Randomness and chance are never causes, and to assume a cause is not a proof this was the sole correct cause.

So, building up from the prior non-argument, the statistician seems to conclude that hypotheses cannot be tested and causes cannot be attributed. The statistician even goes so far as to state,

Quote from: William M. Briggs

...there is no way to tell because there is no definition of trend.

False. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation)

The statistician's reasoning presupposes a sterile world view where statistics - which admittedly only verifies correlations at best, never causality - is everything there is. By citing the fact that statistics cannot give you causality, it's possible to reject causal forces and trends only when one doesn't want to know anything about the world outside statistics, such as the empirical world of common-sense experience, where causes are a normal feature alongside with (and distinct from) correlations.

The larger context of this discussion is the Global Warming debate. Given only the information thus far, can anyone guess on which side of the debate the statistician is? I cannot. If I had the kind of world view as the statistician here has, believing that statistics is utterly pointless and proves nothing (or can be used to prove anything), I would give up being a statistician, because I care about meaningful argumentation and proofs.

Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend. Its empirical causes are distinct from the measurements of the temperature. And policies to deal with the causes are distinct from the science of it. But in the minds of reductionists and oversimplifiers, nothing is proven and everything is politics.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-15, 05:10:30
Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.
Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends?
The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful... No? :)
Causes necessitate correlations. But correlations may (and often do) escape causes, because the mere correlation (and any statistical shenanigans proffered) are merely co-incident.
You're too given to accept opinion polls as statistics, ersi. While they may be a valuable tool for marketing they're a pox upon science!

Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-15, 05:22:37

The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful... No? :)

And causal models cannot be had? Like, we don't know that rain comes from clouds and clouds are made of steam and are pushed around by wind that is atmospheric pressure that differs from location to location?


Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?

Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so. (This in order for me to determine for sure if anything you say here has any meaning. Often it doesn't, and it seems so right now too.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-15, 05:33:42
Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend.
It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray...
We're recovering from the last Ice Age! Of course, the earth's climate is warming.
Scientists should want to know why! The AGW groups have focused upon CO2, and hence fossil fuels... But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

What to do?
Stick to the "trend" we think we saw, and bet the farm on it? It's not really there anymore; but we're committed!
As far as I can tell, the only statistical use of the term "trend" is to get people to spend money they'd otherwise spend sensibly. (Bluejeans with holes and rips in them selling for more than whole, durable denim is the example that comes to my mind first.)

The one reasonable use of "trend analysis" I can think of -that isn't predicated upon propaganda and political manipulation- is that of providing scientists with data-driven insights from which to develop hypotheses.
Hypotheses should lead to causal theories which make predictions... Which is how they're tested: Posit a cause, explain it by a theory; predict on that basis future events. See if the predictions fail... If they do, the theory is wrong.
The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does...) nothing will be learned...
While you might be happy with that, I would not.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-15, 05:49:18
Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so.
Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four... Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters -- mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them... The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A -- as a result. (Sometimes not...) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-15, 06:40:23

It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray...

I can grant this - you are led astray by trendy language. It's perfectly evident from the other thread that you think statistics is fundamentally flawed - except for the single statistician that happens to be to your liking. Meanwhile, it never crosses your mind that statistics might be taught in the correct perspective in the rest of the world.

As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.


Scientists should want to know why!

But they found out why. It's just that you are in denial of what they found out.

Just to make it clear, tell what you think the scientists are saying about the causes of Global Warming. From what I have seen, the denialists are oversimplifying (as if warming were the one and only problem, instead of wider ecological concerns, and as if CO2 were the one and only greenhouse gas) and bogged down in the politics rather than the science.


The AGW groups have focused upon CO2, and hence fossil fuels... But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.


The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does...) nothing will be learned...

The statistician that I berate notes a lot a things with zero specifics as to what he is going on about. The specifics in his talk are so scant that from what you quoted it was impossible to tell his topic (Global Warming) and whether he was pro or contra. Whichever way it may be, he makes no point that would hint at the reason why he's pro or contra. If you can indicate such a point, please do.


Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four... Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters -- mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them... The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A -- as a result. (Sometimes not...) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)

And how is this missing in the Global Warming debate in general? From what I can see, it's your quoted statistician alone who recognises no causality whatsoever.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-15, 07:05:35
Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.
The "scientists" who are committed to AGW are leaders -or merely part of- the groups... :)
If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong... Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.
What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end... We don't know. Our theories about such are -shall we say- merely statistical? :)
The idea that the greenhouse effect predicts, on the basis of human activity, a cataclysmic "cusp" event for the earth's climate is based upon -- what?
And when you mention that what, remember that science requires more than opinion polls!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-15, 07:41:47

If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong... Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

As long as you have not cited a specific case or paper, you have not made a point.

As for me, I see the global warming debate as a continuation of the ozone depletion debate. Nobody questioned the science there, and even the politics (targeting CFCs, HCFCs, freons, and halons) worked.


I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Indeed, I know better. And what do you know about it? What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?



Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?

This is relevant to what? Are you trying to say that you don't know and this somehow counts as a point against everyone who knows better?


What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Would you say ozone depletion was unreal?


We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end... We don't know.

Oh, you are indeed saying this...

P.S. I promised to tell you about statistical significance when you answer about causes. Statistical significance begins at the threshold of statistical error. Things within the error margin are statistically insignificant. Things outside the error margin are significant, the bigger the more significant.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-15, 18:36:14
Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival.


We found you before.

Quote
The Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, was the principal means for providing U.S. military aid to foreign nations during World War II. The act authorized the president to transfer arms or any other defense materials for which Congress appropriated money to "the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States." Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Brazil, and many other countries received weapons under this law.

By allowing the president to transfer war matériel to a beleaguered Britain-and without payment as required by the Neutrality Act of 1939-the act enabled the British to keep fighting until events led America into the conflict. It also skirted the thorny problems of war debts that had followed World War I.

Don't you think it's time to pay us back.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-16, 00:20:05
Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"? And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?
What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?
I see... Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!
I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC... I've tried to keep up. (Yes, I occasionally read journal papers, as well as certain blogs -- of which I have my favorites; you likely have yours, if you're really interested. :) ) Here's John Christy relating his experience with the TAR:
Quote

My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 "Observed Climate Variability and Change", allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections.
First, note these key points about the IPCC process: the L.A. is allowed (a) to have essentially complete control over the text, (b) sit in judgment of his/her own work as well as that of his/her critics and (c) to have the option of arbitrarily dismissing reviewer comments since he/she is granted the position of "authority" (unlike peer-review.) Add to this situation the rather unusual fact that the L.A. of this particular section had been awarded a PhD only a few months before his selection by the IPCC. Such a process can lead to a biased assessment of any science. But, problems are made more likely in climate science, because, as noted, ours is a murky field of research - we still can't explain much of what happens in weather and climate.
The Hockey Stick curve depicts a slightly meandering Northern Hemisphere cooling trend from 1000 A.D. through 1900, which then suddenly swings upward in the last 80 years to temperatures warmer than any of the millennium when smoothed. To many, this appeared to be a "smoking gun" of temperature change proving that the 20th century warming was unprecedented and therefore likely to be the result of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
I will not debate the quality of the Hockey Stick - that has been effectively done elsewhere (and indeed there is voluminous discussion on this issue), so, whatever one might think of the Hockey Stick, one can readily understand that its promotion by the IPCC was problematic given the process outlined above. Indeed, with the evidence contained in the Climategate emails, we have a fairly clear picture of how this part of the IPCC TAR went awry. For a more detailed account of this incident with documentation, see http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/ (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/).
We were appointed L.A.s in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. I can assure the committee that those not familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type (and even many who should have been) were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature and sincerely wanted to believe it was truth. Skepticism was virtually non-existent. Indeed it was described as a "clear favourite" for the overall Policy Makers Summary (Folland, 0938031546.txt). In our Sept. 1999 meeting (Arusha, Tanzania) we were shown a plot containing more temperature curves than just the Hockey Stick including one from K. Briffa that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the past. In other words, absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate really was relatively cooler.
The Briffa curve created disappointment for those who wanted "a nice tidy story" (Briffa 0938031546.txt). The L.A. remarked in emails that he did not want to cast "doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates" and thus, "undermine faith in paleoestimates" which would provide "fodder" to "skeptics" (Mann 0938018124.txt). One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section. Between this email (22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a "trick" to "hide the decline" for the preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 0942777075.txt, "trick" is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the L.A. in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa's curve had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation.)
In retrospect, this disagreement in temperature curves was simply an indication that such reconstructions using tree ring records contain significant uncertainties and may be unreliable in ways we do not currently understand or acknowledge. This should have been explained to the readers of the IPCC TAR and specifically our chapter. Highlighting that uncertainty would have been the proper scientific response to the evidence before us, but the emails show that some L.A.'s worried it would have diminished a sense of urgency about climate change (i.e. "dilutes the message rather significantly", Folland, 0938031546.txt.)
When we met in February 2000 in Auckland NZ, the one disagreeable curve, as noted, was not the same anymore because it had been modified and truncated around 1960. Not being aware of the goings-on behind the scenes, I had apparently assumed a new published time series had appeared and the offensive one had been superceded (I can't be certain of my actual thoughts in Feb. 2000). Now we know, however, that the offensive part of Briffa's curve had simply been amputated after a new realization was created three months before. (It appears also that this same curve was apparently a double amputee, having its first 145 years chopped off too, see http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/ (http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/).) So, at this point, data which contradicted the Hockey Stick, whose creator was the L.A., had been eliminated. No one seemed to be alarmed (or in my case aware) that this had been done.
Procedures to guard against such manipulation of evidence are supposed to be in place whenever biases and conflicts of interest interfere with duties to report the whole truth, especially in assessments that have such potentially drastic policy implications. That the IPCC allowed this episode to happen shows, in my view, that the procedures were structurally deficient.
Even though the new temperature chart appeared to agree with the Hockey Stick, I still expressed my skepticism in this reconstruction as being evidence of actual temperature variations. Basically, this result relied considerably on a type of western U.S. tree-ring not known for its fidelity in reproducing large-scale temperatures (NRC 2006, pg. 52).
At the L.A. meetings, I indicated that there was virtually no inter-century precision in these measurements, i.e. they were not good enough to tell us which century might be warmer than another in the pre-calibration period (1000 to 1850.)
In one Climategate email, a Convening L.A., who wanted to feature the Hockey Stick at the time (though later was less enthusiastic), mentions "The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance" and was "probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2" (Folland, 0938031546.txt). This, in all likelihood, was a reference to (a) my expressed concern (see my 2001 comments to NRC below) as well as to (b) the prominence to which the Hockey Stick was pre destined.
To compound this sad and deceptive situation, I had been quite impressed with some recent results by Dahl-Jensen et al., (Science 1998), in which Greenland ice-borehole temperatures had been deconvolved into a time series covering the past 20,000 years. This measurement indeed presented inter-century variations. Their result indicated a clear 500-year period of temperatures, warmer than the present, centered about 900 A.D. - commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, a feature noticeably absent in the Hockey Stick. What is important about this is that whenever any mid to high-latitude location shows centuries of a particularly large temperature anomaly, the spatial scale that such a departure represents is also large. In other words, long time periods of warmth or coolness are equivalent to large spatial domains of warmth or coolness, such as Greenland can represent for the Northern Hemisphere (the domain of the Hockey Stick.)
I discussed this with the paleo-L.A. at each meeting, asking that he include this exceptional result in the document as evidence for temperature fluctuations different from his own. To me Dahl-Jensen et al.'s reconstruction was a more robust estimate of past temperatures than one produced from a certain set of western U.S. tree-ring proxies. But as the process stood, the L.A. was not required to acknowledge my suggestions, and I was not able to convince him otherwise. It is perhaps a failure of mine that I did not press the issue even harder or sought agreement from others who might have been likewise aware of the evidence against the Hockey Stick realization.
As it turned out, this exceptional paper by Dahl-Jensen et al. was not even mentioned in the appropriate section (TAR 2.3.2). There was a brief mention of similar evidence indicating warmer temperatures 1000 years ago from the Sargasso Sea sediments (TAR 2.3.3), but the text then quickly asserts, without citation, that this type of anomaly is not important to the hemisphere as a whole.
Thus, we see a situation where a contradictory data set from Greenland, which in terms of paleoclimate in my view was quite important, was not offered to the readers (the policymakers) for their consideration. In the end, the Hockey Stick appeared in Figure 1 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, without any other comparisons, a position of prominence that speaks for itself.
So, to summarize, an L.A. was given final say over a section which included as its (and the IPCC's) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence. This led to problems that have only recently been exposed. This process, in my opinion, illustrates that the IPCC did not provide policymakers with an unbiased evaluation of the science, whatever one thinks about the Hockey Stick as a temperature reconstruction.
(source (http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/#more-15402))
If you are unfamiliar with this story, from what do you argue? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-16, 04:08:09

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"?

You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.


And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?

Man-made industrial pollutants are man-made industrial pollutants. I gave a list too in #91.


I see... Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!

I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC... I've tried to keep up.

Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.

And, as your long quote shows this time, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.

Seriously, politics is a distinct matter. In the ozone depletion agenda, the politics worked just fine - not only because the science was right, but because the politics was right. They both have to be right. In this Global Warming/Climate Change thing, the politics is slow, narrow, ridden with "interests" and ineffective. Pretty much everybody except Americans know that the United States is torpedoing the process to gain an edge over China and EU - this is politics. But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-16, 05:37:22
Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.
And, as I suspected, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.
I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol... The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of ... stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected... :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't... Hm!)
But the effects of banning CFCs and such was minor. (Both the environmental effects and the economic costs.)
You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.
Not to worry, though: The measurement of the earth's temperature is so poorly handled by incompetent (...or worse!) statisticians that their "trendiness" is soon to come crashing down. (At least the satellite record uses statistics correctly.) How else would you explain the "adjustment" of buoy measurements -designed for the purpose- being changed, to accommodate canvas and wooden bucket sea surface temperatures that are (ahem!) hotter, and hence to be preferred?

Indeed, the politics interests me -- in much the way that cancer might interest a pathologist. (I see some few prominent scientists attempting to be general physicians... You'd probably call them witches.)
The science fascinates me. The various fields and their interaction are rich lodes of information and inspiration -- and challenge. I'd like to see climatology become a real science -- if it's possible.
I would not like to see it continue to be a fantasy-game of supercomputer models whose predictions are never checked... Simulations are an important tool in such a field; but -if the field is to progress- it needs to hypothesize causes. By all means, model those. But the models must make predictions that can be falsified... Else, they'll just be computer games.

Is there even one climate scientist's paper you'd mention (so that I can read it, or comment if I already have...) to me?
Jim Hanson, Michael Mann, Phil Jones; Hans von Storch, James Annan, Ken Briffa; any of their co-authors... Indeed, anyone who's published in the last 20 years or so -- I can find their papers.
So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field...)
------------------------------------------
But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.
You have a very odd definition of science...
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".
The governments of the world don't abide by the prescriptions of those who believe in the models; these are evil people!

Is there anything else to your argument? :)

BTW:
You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.
I don't want an "idea" about the evidence... I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Put another way, I see no way you can support your trope of trends, unless you develop causal theories. (Everything Christy said about the HockeyStick graph applies...) But look at the pretty straight line! Ooh! It must mean something...!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fimages%2Fhiatus.png&hash=eddfb4fa2c75f9076cbf36ffc5d978bd" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.realclimate.org/images/hiatus.png)

P.S.,
Read some of Judith Curry's papers...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-16, 07:17:19

I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol... The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of ... stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected... :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't... Hm!)

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.


You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.

So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO2 and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.

You have astonishingly little faith in the capabilities of modern technology whereas in ancient times Roman empire managed to deforestate all Mediterranean coasts. Modern industry surely can achieve feats greater than this. But we've already seen that for example nuclear explosions only fill you with delight.


You have a very odd definition of science...
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".

You keep saying this, but you never cite an actual paper that predicted something and no paper that disproved the predictions. You can keep saying this as long as you like.


So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field...)

No paper convinced me. And no paper will be able to convince you either, because your attitude is like that of the statistician with crap logic, decidedly missing the point.

Industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me. You, on the other hand, believe there's no such thing as industrial impact because, according to you, statistics can be used to prove anything. This is missing the point, because this never was to do with statistics per se. It's to do with climatology and ecology. If you are not denying the greenhouse effect, then you know what I am talking about and you are knowingly evading it.

I am not quitting the field. We never were in the same field to begin with.

I don't want an "idea" about the evidence... I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )

Evidence about ozone depletion. Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-16, 07:46:05
To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.
The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe... Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquition. :) ) Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...
A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated. (But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)
What do the models say, now? (What has concerned measurement said, recently?)
But I read more of your post:
So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO2 and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.
Have you an anti-industrial agenda you'd like to discuss? :) (I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land...)
industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me.
I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.
But trying to destroy the economies of the West and preclude the assumption of industrial civilization in Africa, e.g., will not make you better off.
Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support -- well, whatever. And consider becoming conversant with science, since 30 years ago...which seems to be when you stopped learning.
Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.
Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion... Please.
Not the "projected" effects but those actually observed.
(As you and I both know, there were none... So, cite the paper(s) that predicted such.)
BTW: Wiki says that 98% of such pollutants have been eliminated -- but there's still more to be done! :)
Nature really is a Bitch!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-16, 08:02:27
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frugal-cafe.com%2Fpublic_html%2Ffrugal-blog%2Ffrugal-cafe-blogzone%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fglobal-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoon.jpg&hash=6255ca887af6c771ef8d14de160f163b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/global-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoon.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-16, 09:10:15

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.
The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe... Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquation. :) )

Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...

No, not proven as in proven according to Briggs's definition. Same as anywhere else, Briggsian logic does not apply here.

The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action. You don't reject safety itself (which is what the precautionary principle is - it's a formulation of the principle of safety and caution; it's not a policy/action that could be considered either safe or unsafe).

If you reject safety as a matter of principle, you are not just failing the logic of the precautionary principle formulated whichever way. You are being plain stupid in the pragmatic sense.


A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated.
(But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Not because of harms predicted, but because of pervasive environmental impact consistently demonstrated:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Environmental_impact

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is readily adsorbed to soils and sediments, which can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure contributing to terrestrial organisms. [...] DDT is toxic to a wide range of living organisms, [etc.]



Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)

The debate concerning the ban was, back then, about its use as a pesticide in agriculture, not in air-conditioning. In Northern Europe we hardly need air-conditioning. This is how much you know and remember.


(I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land...)

I in fact do. I was raised this way and I'm doing my best to maintain this way of life, despite the odds.


I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.

The current government cares even less about ecology. They don't care about demographics and economy either. They only care about tactical alignment with EU/US, regardless of the content of the policies. They have done things against overwhelming popular opinion, so evidently they are not looking at the people for guidance.


Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?

Yes, you are wrong. Because this is not about making oneself to feel better at all. It's about reducing obvious harm and wrongness. When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life. Whereas you evidently think that the solution is to go to the supermarket and there's no problem at all. This is worlds apart. We are not talking about the same thing, dude.


Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion... Please.

Too hard to read Wikipedia?

Quote from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Increased_UV

Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth's surface.

The relevant reference on the Wikipedia page: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-17, 05:22:38
The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action.
So, swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking are too dangerous -- since they are not certainly safe! :) Your rubber room awaits you...
Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support -- well, whatever.
Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a publisher of academic papers! :) Even so, I meant actual measured effects, not speculative statistics. More importantly, I was specifically looking for papers about climatology... (You know, the topic here?)
And, as I expected, you cited none.
When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life.
The folks here in the Central Valley of California didn't a hundred years ago, nor did the Israelis much more recently... Perhaps it's the attitude of the people that matters most.
Subsistence farming seems not much better than hunting and gathering. Just how primitive would you like to see the world's societies become? :)

And I reiterate the challenge: Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-17, 05:49:24

So, swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking are too dangerous -- since they are not certainly safe! :) Your rubber room awaits you...

Are you still talking about the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC? Evidently not. I'll answer to you as soon as you come back to your senses.


Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a publisher of academic papers! :)

Wikipedia links to them though, and I gave such a link. You have not given even this much. So we are even, as soon as you stop lowering yourself.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-17, 06:58:10
Are you still talking about the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC? Evidently not.
I'm talking about the Precautionary Principle... Your acceptance of which apparently explains your fear of learning and thinking... How could you be certain such were "certainly safe"? :)

The IPCC is up to its 5th Assessment Report; and I've read most of it... You?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-18, 08:39:38

I'm talking about the Precautionary Principle...
[...]
The IPCC is up to its 5th Assessment Report; and I've read most of it... You?

No, I haven't. What does it say about "swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking"? The earlier reports said nothing.

You may have read the thing, but your reading comprehension is zero. You have attached principles to random events previously too. Thus far you have not even touched ecological concerns.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-18, 16:17:16
Random? :) Shall we then agree to apply the Precautionary Principle only to technology?
Start with crop rotation and irrigation... Obviously, the "certainty" required is a mutable term. And just as obviously you fail to acknowledge such.
Else, no technology is certainly safe -- and, as such, should be proscribed!

Do you see the problem with a doctrinaire application of the Precautionary Principle yet?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-18, 22:57:57
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI'
OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html)

Because there's nothing more to be said about.
I specially endorse His Holiness words:  "it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor."

Learn with the wise words.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-18, 23:19:24
I read excerpts the day before it was released publicly; and re-checked today... Pope Francis is badly advised on and incompetent to judge the climate change debate.

You may disagree, Belfrager. (In which case, you have a gross misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Infallibility... An inexcusable lapse, for an intelligent Catholic; you might as well be a pagan or a Communist! :) )

You might want to read this (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/mixing-up-the-sciences-of-heaven-and-earth)...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-19, 05:26:36

Random? :) Shall we then agree to apply the Precautionary Principle only to technology?

Sorry, dude. Why is it impossible for you to keep to the topic? Why do you spill everything over in all directions when the reports are specific and very moderate? The reports are not focused on technology. They are focused on climatology first, on technology only in relation to the emissions of greenhouse gases.


Start with crop rotation and irrigation... Obviously, the "certainty" required is a mutable term. And just as obviously you fail to acknowledge such.
Else, no technology is certainly safe -- and, as such, should be proscribed!

Are you really saying this? "Certainty" is a mutable term? Do you prefer "presumption of innocence" or perhaps even "absolute freedom"? Like, nuke first, ask questions later? And you see no problem with your position?


Do you see the problem with a doctrinaire application of the Precautionary Principle yet?

I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.

The principle means "be cautious". For example, don't go out into public with new technology without testing it properly first. The principle is not about technology, but about the effects. At this stage, environmental policies are still mostly concerned with restricting the very well known effects of coal power plants and such. Only a lunatic who doesn't care about facts can argue against this. They also recommend alternative energy sources, but nothing is known beyond solar and wind energy. Research is encouraged in the area of technology that would enable reduction of industry that emits greenhouse gases. Simple.

So, to summarise, we are not in substantial disagreement. You simply do not have a position that would merit agreement or disagreement.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-19, 08:14:41
Simple.
Yes, I'd have to agree: You are.

Coal and natural gas (along with nuclear...) will have to provide the majority of our -the world's- energy for about a century or so, unless a breakthrough occurs. The poorest countries will certainly have to be "allowed" to use such; to keep them from doing so would be to consign them to poverty...
But not to worry too much: They will learn to clean up after themselves, much as we did.
Wealth has a way of making one conscientious. (Communist systems have perverse incentives... You've yourself seen their results! So, you might want to study what actually happened in western democracies.)
I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.
Many have suggested that it should be! Most recently, Pope Francis...

You won't convince me that the Precautionary Principle isn't self-refuting, ersi. If you just want to urge caution, do so. But requiring the certainty of safety is beyond human means. Risks need to be assessed -- granted. There will always be trade-offs: What might we get for what we risk, is the perennial question.

Some people think that burning fossil fuels, thus adding a shit-load of atmospheric (or oceanic) carbon to our hydrosphere, will "tip" our climate over the cusp, into an unstable state -- something that we've not seen before.
These people don't have anything more than failed models to support this contention (if that). Yet you seem to take it for granted that a scientific consensus backs them!
Do any of these models actually model the climate, in a scientific sense?

Of course, you don't care. You can't be bothered to learn enough about it. You just insult those who disagree with you from your ignorant perch... Piously preach the virtues of returning to the Stone Age, eh? :) (At least for the Africans...)

Give me at least a few papers from the last 20 years that predict global warming (or cataclysmic climate change) that I can argue against! (Surely, you came to your opinions rationally!) I've likely read them, and can show where you went wrong... :)
But -of course- you won't do that: You can't be wrong! Your ego couldn't stand the strain.

BTW: I'm not a "dude": I can ride a horse...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-19, 09:33:31

Coal and natural gas (along with nuclear...) will have to provide the majority of our -the world's- energy for about a century or so, unless a breakthrough occurs. The poorest countries will certainly have to be "allowed" to use such; to keep them from doing so would be to consign them to poverty...
But not to worry too much: They will learn to clean up after themselves, much as we did.
Wealth has a way of making one conscientious. (Communist systems have perverse incentives... You've yourself seen their results! So, you might want to study what actually happened in western democracies.)

Coal and natural gas and nuclear power have to provide the energy if you have to keep up the industries that feed on it. I'm not going to ask you which one you pick when the choice becomes between the survival of an industry and the survival of people. The answer seems quite clear. Right now the choice is between preservation of ecology and industry, and you already show your inclinations.


I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.
Many have suggested that it should be! Most recently, Pope Francis...

And this permits you to ignore the fact that IPCC is not a judge and police? This permits you to behave as if your hypotheticals were in effect?


You won't convince me that the Precautionary Principle isn't self-refuting, ersi.

This never was about convincing you. When you are evidently doing your best to ignore both the facts and the basic logic, the problem is not what you are thinking about these issues. The problem is that you are obviously not thinking about these issues, just spewing nonsense. Despite your readingness, you do not have an opinion worth the name here, certainly not an informed opinion.


Some people think that burning fossil fuels, thus adding a shit-load of atmospheric (or oceanic) carbon to our hydrosphere, will "tip" our climate over the cusp, into an unstable state -- something that we've not seen before.
These people don't have anything more than failed models to support this contention (if that). Yet you seem to take it for granted that a scientific consensus backs them!
Do any of these models actually model the climate, in a scientific sense?

The reports say what they say. What else have you got for facts? Thus far you have cited nothing besides Riggsian crap logic (just his easily refuted logic, no facts).


Give me at least a few papers from the last 20 years that predict global warming (or cataclysmic climate change) that I can argue against! (Surely, you came to your opinions rationally!) I've likely read them, and can show where you went wrong... :)
But -of course- you won't do that: You can't be wrong! Your ego couldn't stand the strain.

They are there referenced in the reports. You said you read them, dude. Now refute them with the kind of science you think is correct. Not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-19, 09:56:48
They are there referenced in the reports. You said you read them, dude. Now refute them with the kind of science you think is correct. Not holding my breath.
No! By all means, hold your breath!
You cite nothing, and expect me to refute everything?! (I mentioned, I'm not a dude: I can ride a horse, and rope a steer! -- northern valley Californian! Just because I grew up in New England doesn't mean I never learned more! What have you learned, ersi?) What do you claim makes your view of AGW something that others should accept?
(Heck: What is your view of AGW...?)

Please hold your breath long enough to achieve your natural level of intelligence... Coma.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-19, 10:06:13

No! By all means, hold your breath!
You cite nothing, and expect me to refute everything?!

For a start, refute any specific fact that's been mentioned in this discussion thus far. But you have shown utmost disrespect for facts, so they probably passed you by totally, therefore I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-19, 10:26:22
For a start, refute any specific fact that's been mentioned in this discussion thus far
Have you mentioned that the earth's temperature is increasing -- as a result of increased (admittedly - by anthropogenic means) CO2...?
Support that.
Then, make your case for a "World Government" solution for alleviating or mitigating those "horrendous" effects -- that have been projected. :)

You and Paul Ehrlich are two of a kind.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-19, 14:24:36
This is coming just after the warming subsides.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailygalaxy.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341bf7f753ef0133f5689a25970b-320wi&hash=e6484d9df1f22883c5ef0a5ef79c1c7e" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0133f5689a25970b-320wi)
The earth is trying to kill us.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fguns003.gif&hash=0966e778e8de4d1d1b29796d435814e4" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns003.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-20, 13:28:41
About Anthropogenic Global Warming & other anthropogenic things:

Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full)
Quote

The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth's history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify. Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations--notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain, and climate change (31-33). All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-21, 03:19:29
Guess that whole Evolution thingie didn't work out? :)
Stuff happens, ecosystems change, organisms adapt...or not. Isn't that how it's supposed to happen? :)
Seriously, this is akin to logic chopping... Either there is credible evidence of human-caused warming (...or disruption?) of the climate or there isn't. Either there is a credible theory -which makes verifiable predictions- about such or there isn't.
There. Isn't that simple enough?

If that's still too complicated for those who "believe in" CAGW (or inimical climate "change" caused by human activity), how about a simple bet -- much like that Paul Ehrlich made lo! these many years ago?

I bet each "scenario" based catastrophe fails to occur. And that CAGW "true believers" still insist that they're right, dammit! 10, 20, and 30 years hence.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-21, 03:51:46

Seriously, this is akin to logic chopping... Either there is credible evidence of human-caused warming (...or disruption?) of the climate or there isn't. Either there is a credible theory -which makes verifiable predictions- about such or there isn't.
There. Isn't that simple enough?

The problem with you, besides being a logic-twisting oversimplifier, is that you are an absolute zero when it comes to specifics.

You accused climate models of failing -  consistently failing. I cannot respond to this accusation as long as you are not telling what models you are talking about, what the models predicted, and what actually happened, according to you. You fail consistently in specifics.

Also, you said something about CO2 causing global warming. Something that the reports do not say (CO2 is at most among several causes of warming). Meaning, you are not reading properly. The reports say there's been consistent warming and there's been an increase of greenhouse gases. And they mention carbon cycle processes where the input of CO2 is crucial - this is probably the model you had in mind, but since you never mentioned it, really not my job to say anything about it either.

And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion. Looks like you didn't see that coming at all.

You are yet to demonstrate competence to discuss the actual issue. The issue is ecological, not political.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-21, 05:52:30
And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion.
That actually makes sense, in a weird sort of way: The Montreal Protocol eliminated 98% if the CFCs (and other culprits...); but -you'll note- the "problem" hasn't gone away!
The science seemed simple and straightforward... It was; it was also simplistic.
As your favorite source states:
Quote
Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the sun, ozone layer depletion increases surface UVB levels (all else equal), which could lead to damage, including increase in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol. Although decreases in stratospheric ozone are well-tied to CFCs and to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer and eye damage in human beings. This is partly because UVA, which has also been implicated in some forms of skin cancer, is not absorbed by ozone, and because it is nearly impossible to control statistics for lifestyle changes in the populace. [emphasis added; science is tricky, that way... :)]
[And]
Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth's surface. UV-driven phenolic formation in tree rings has dated the start of ozone depletion in northern latitudes to the late 1700s. [emphasis added!]
(source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Consequences_of_ozone_layer_depletion))


So: We don't know how much (if any) deleterious effects can be mitigated, because we don't know if there are any. And the problem began about 200 years before the culprit was invented!

Science by séance seems to be your preferred "method," ersi.

(If you won't even read the IPCC's assessment reports, what gives you a basis for your opinions about AGW/Climate Change...? Inquiring minds want to know! :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-21, 12:21:10
The issue is ecological, not political.

There you touch the point. The issue is ecological but the absence of a shared vision and strategy to fight it until now is, apparently, political.

The economical interests of a few are causing the biggest catastrophe imaginable. The problem is, in the first place, moral.

Therefore the Pope's Encyclical importance that now on defines the social teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject for a more than billion souls in the entire world. That's His contribute, by far bigger than anything else.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-21, 14:56:58
Therefore the Pope's Encyclical importance that now on defines the social teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject for a more than billion souls in the entire world. That's His contribute, by far bigger than anything else.

You grossly overstate the importance of papal suasion in the modern world. There are seven billion people in the world, about six million of whom could care less about papal proclamations. My guess is that millions of Catholics don't know what the Pope is proclaiming and don't care. Most of my family members are habit Catholics, that is Catholics who were born into a Catholic family and who practice some form of Catholicism but don't pay any attention to papal proclamations. When my parents were alive I doubt that they could have named the Pope, but they went to mass every week, took communion, and that was it. My wife is a "Catholic" who never attends mass, could care less about the Pope but who prays for people she loves, including me.

Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air, but his presence in the world will not make it a better place to live.

Viva il Papa.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-21, 15:05:48
Most of my family members are habit Catholics, that is Catholics who were born into a Catholic family and who practice some form of Catholicism but don't pay any attention to papal proclamations.

That is going to change, believe me. That's why Francis is there and that's what he's doing extraordinarily successfully.
Many of us fear for his life because of that.
My wife is a "Catholic" who never attends mass, could care less about the Pope but who prays for people she loves, including me.

She's a perfect normal Catholic, perhaps a little bit "European Style". :)

That Encyclical is worth reading by everybody. It's not a scientific paper nor it was ever intended to be but an holistic approach to Man's common heritage in these earthly matters.
Come'on, you can jump some parts, just read the more interesting ones... it will be enough. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-22, 05:04:13

And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion.
That actually makes sense, in a weird sort of way: The Montreal Protocol eliminated 98% if the CFCs (and other culprits...); but -you'll note- the "problem" hasn't gone away!

If the problem hasn't gone away, there are several reasons.



The science seemed simple and straightforward... It was; it was also simplistic.

It's your reading of the situation which is tendentious, to put it mildly.


As your favorite source states:
Quote
Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the sun, ozone layer depletion increases surface UVB levels (all else equal), which could lead to damage, including increase in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol.

I don't know anyone who doubts the link between UVB and skin cancer. It's a bit surprising you should even bring it up. For example solariums and skin cancer, heard of it?



So: We don't know how much (if any) deleterious effects can be mitigated, because we don't know if there are any.

We know the deleterious effects. You don't, by virtue of denial, but everybody else knows.


And the problem began about 200 years before the culprit was invented!

Similarly, the global warming thing has been related to paleoclimate studies, so that human causes could reasonably be told apart from natural causes. It's an interesting question to what extent this is a man-made suicide and to what extent it's mother nature euthanising us off because we have become a cancer.


Science by séance seems to be your preferred "method," ersi.

Modern science has always been like this, inductively guesstimating. The alternative you are providing is "We don't know and can't know. It's true science to not know and not give a damn."


(If you won't even read the IPCC's assessment reports, what gives you a basis for your opinions about AGW/Climate Change...? Inquiring minds want to know! :) )

It's been firmly established that you have no inquiring mind whatsoever. Your method is deliberate misreading and denial of facts.

My inference is straightforward - pollution pollutes. We should clean up after ourselves. We are obviously not doing it. It's natural to expect punishment for this.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sparta on 2015-06-22, 06:35:24
relax sir ...
ozone can recycle naturally  .

but sometimes , certain materials such as Freon , etc .
can interupt   Ozone Recycle mechanism .

so to make sure ozone in safe level , just reduce that culprits .


in case the culprits is unavoidable , then make a Huge Ozone Generator to make sure Ozone supply is fulfilled .
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-22, 07:48:02
It's an interesting question to what extent this is a man-made suicide and to what extent it's mother nature euthanising us off because we have become a cancer.
It's that attitude that permeates the so-called environmentalist "wacko" movement. (As Rush Limbaugh called them, long ago...) that lead me to question AGW and ask for source material...
You see, I know how to read academic scientific papers. (I'd mentioned before, my specialty when I was young was called Philosophy of Science!) You think yourself clever, by never citing actual scientific work; you are, indeed! You're playing the old shell-game! But you're not very good at it.

If you feel humanity is a bane, do your part: Set an example!

But if you think you know something about climate change/AGW, say what it is... Or take an opinion poll! (That will help... :) )
Maybe you should sell lottery tickets...?
----------------------------------
@Sparta:
It's been noted; it's been done. It's been contemplated... :) (But not by Luddites like ersi.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-22, 08:09:16

You think yourself clever, by never citing actual scientific work; you are, indeed! You're playing the old shell-game!

Actually, you are the one playing the game and thinking yourself clever for this. Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side. You have cited nothing on your part.

Not holding my breath, dude. So long.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-22, 08:25:52
Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side.
Yes. But I've read many of the papers cited by the EPA and the IPPC... So: I have opinions about them.
You only have the opinions of "others" to rely on.

I'm not a credentialed climatologist. (Briggs is...) So, I may not have the expertise to understand erey paper I've read. But I am not about to be cowed by the "97% consensus" papers -- which only naive (or stupid!) people accept! I know enough about statistics, and science in general, to know that an appeal to Authority is non-scientific...
Apparently, you don't.

I'm not surprised: You think Logic Theory stopped at the Syllogism!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-22, 08:42:09

Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side.
Yes. But I've read many of the papers cited by the EPA and the IPPC... So: I have opinions about them.
You only have the opinions of "others" to rely on.

Nothing special about that we have opinions. The question is whether they are soundly formed. Your reading skills and ability to form opinions have been suspect all along and you have done nothing to sway the suspicions.

By now, you have had about a hundred chances to prove you actually read anything relevant and understood what you read. But as it is, I'd say evidence is amounting to the contrary.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-22, 09:05:37
You got here (this topic...) late. And your most compelling argument is: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence..."

How about something reallysimple: Show me how a "global temperature" can be determined, to a tenth of a degree...

(Little, tiny baby steps -- for the retarded students!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-22, 09:18:48

You got here (this topic...) late.

My first post in this thread is #13. Your first is only after my invitation. So, not only are your reading skills lacking. You cannot count either.


And your most compelling argument is: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence..."

As opposed to no argument from you. And now it's certain that none will be forthcoming ever.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-22, 22:12:25
You think Logic Theory stopped at the Syllogism!

The day I see Americans understanding the most simple syllogism, that day will be declared Holiday worldwide. Alleluia.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-06-22, 23:14:55
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-eGdzmt46kYs%2FUMpIoi-AGvI%2FAAAAAAAAFcM%2FcBHBX1JOsG8%2Fs1600%2FLeonard-Nimoy.jpg&hash=6a4010ef6e6550633cd23adfb1241be7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eGdzmt46kYs/UMpIoi-AGvI/AAAAAAAAFcM/cBHBX1JOsG8/s1600/Leonard-Nimoy.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-23, 07:11:17
The day I see Americans understanding the most simple syllogism [...]
Two recent generations included W.V.O. Quine and George Boolos... But you could go back at least as far a Peirce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce).
Have you too succumbed to prejudice, Belfrager? Is that all that's left of European intellectualism, biddies and gossips? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-06-23, 08:45:15
I freely confess to having to look the word up just now. Having done so, however.... Bel, you should be ashamed of yourself. Imagine thinking that Americans are so hopelessly stupid. That's not fact, it's just European snootery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-23, 09:23:58
Europeans have always been snobs, mjm! That's why Geo. Washington warned us to keep clear of their territorial disputes...
But you should remember, they didn't invent the transistor. They only invented Total War!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-06-23, 09:33:32

Europeans have always been snobs, mjm! That's why Geo. Washington warned us to keep clear of their territorial disputes...
But you should remember, they didn't invent the transistor. They only invented Total War!


Errr---- ahhhhhh------nope. Got a Bible? I think if you leaf through the Old Testament, you'll find examples of total war that predate Europe. Annihilation of entire city-states even including putting animals to the sword-- leaving nothing alive-- men, women, children all slain. It might take a bit longer with swords and spears than it does with guns and bombs, but the demolition of Jericho looks pretty total-- only one family left alive out of that entire city. One example.

Looks to me, leafing through a bit of reading, that Ghengis Khan and his hordes were no slouches about waging total war either.

The Europeans didn't invent it. They just got very good at it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-06-23, 22:10:29
And the Yanks made a permanent feature of it!  :lol:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-06-23, 22:35:09

And the Yanks made a permanent feature of it!  :lol:


Oh, really? I note that we do at least try to cut down civilian casualties. That's what "smart-bomb" technology was supposed to be about. You hit the military target and leave civilian targets alone. Well, that's the theory anyway.

Now, of course I have to say that as long as nuclear-tipped ICBMs exist the idea of total war unlike anything seen before now is always on the table. I could wish it were not, but the damn things have been invented and I doubt that the evil genie can be put back in the bottle.

Funny thing about that, RJH. Life would be a lot simpler for us if we did wage total war. ISIS wants to cause trouble? Just turn the Middle East into a nuclear wasteland--- that fixes ISIS' clock. But--- we really can't do that. So you might be a bit off in trying to pin every evil on Yankees.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2015-06-23, 23:46:15
So you might be a bit off in trying to pin every evil on Yankees.


Yeah........share a bit with the Mets why doncha??!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-06-25, 01:20:00
The problem is mjsmsprt40 decade after decade who has been invading countries, attacking them, destabilising and so on. Spends half the world's armaments bill and the military and corporate military suppliers are so into each other's pockets. So one does not have to make it up as I am afraid your land is tops.  I know you like be 1st in most things but ignoring the unfortunate firsts isn't balanced! Stop trying to be the world policeman and sighing when use the word "policing." Just think what you could save, reduce the trillions and help your own people who suffer by the tens of millions. That would do you oodles of credit and acknowledgement.

ps. And in hock to the Commies!  :devil:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-25, 13:35:19
We'll eventually have our UK moment and then pass into international indolence........
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-25, 21:13:14
Would that it were so, Jimbro... But until and unless our economy really collapses we will keep our fingers in many pies.

Maybe when the U.N. (or some similarly fetid world body) assumes "responsibility" for the climate we will have an enemy worth fighting! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-25, 23:02:27
I anxiously await a new Snowball Earth episode.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNgpQci6iWx0%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=78cc71b2451a416e6676fa12486e1283" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NgpQci6iWx0/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-06-27, 04:19:03
International indolence by your corner jimbro would save you trillions and maybe for a change help your own. Learn.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-06-29, 23:03:15
But until and unless our economy really collapses we will keep our fingers in many pies.

Do they put drugs in the water there? in the air? in the wisky? nice, that way you don't even need going in pilgrimage to Kathmandu, you can say bullshit right from California.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-29, 23:15:47
Fluster and bluster -- a fine pair! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-06-30, 02:33:16
Has there actually been warming in the last 10 years to any significant point?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-30, 04:15:03
If you set your thermostat to 22º and your thermometer registers 16º regardless, your thermostat is broken... (Or your warming/cooling system is! But that's too complicated, for here.) The various models used by the IPCC predicted temperature increase that has not come, sea level rise that didn't, and "extreme" weather that no records show. But, since CO2 is the greenhouse gas most hated by the environmentalists, the fiction of AGW must be maintained by animus against fossil fuels...
Of course, you could, I suppose, assume that your thermometer is broken... (That's sort-of what the scramble to find the missing heat in the deep ocean was all about: The models have to be saved! :) Else, it's back to old-fashioned science. Dull; not so lucrative.) But, then, you'd have to be leery of your previous temperature readings, no? :)
(That's why the "hide the decline" scandal was so egregious...)

Long-story-short: The theory of Catastrophic Climate Change (nee Global Warming) is weak, because of its scientific shortcomings and the sometimes silly politicking some of its major proponents have been caught at.
Myself, I'd like to see Climatology progress. It's a fascinating and important topic. But the politics of AGW/Climate Change is an impediment, I think.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-30, 06:18:18

The various models used by the IPCC predicted temperature increase that has not come, sea level rise that didn't,

Having read the reports, you could naturally provide quotes to this effect, right? Yes, you naturally could, except that you don't. Perhaps they are not there? Or any better reason why it's taking you so long?


...and "extreme" weather that no records show.

Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?


Long-story-short: The theory of Catastrophic Climate Change (nee Global Warming) is weak,...

So, we are not talking about the same thing. The thing I am talking about was not nee Global Warming. I am talking about what was there long before. The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-30, 07:17:11
Perhaps they are not there? Or any better reason why it's taking you so long?
Oh, I wasn't "there" when you posted... Forgive me, for sensibly not taking you seriously! But you've spent a lot of time and typing convincing me that this was the best course.
I won't bother to cite papers that noone will read, and few will understand. (Your politics don't interest me...) The "science" is corrupt; there are few who care anymore: The political "officers" are fighting for their survival, and we both know how hard they can fight!
Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?
Exactly so! The sensationalizing of "weather" without the background information and appropriate historical context leads profiteers to highlight individual events... Was Hurricane Katrina caused by AGW? The Sandy "Super Storm"? The tsunami that caused the devastation 'round the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
Doesn't science need to take a longer view than the "news cycle"? (Well, not for opinion pollsters and their masters...) Science is a "long game" -- it seems to have often gotten "it" right, eventually. But the various groups that see crises looming don't have the patience to wait "that long". And they always have a coercive governmental "solution"...
But -- have they ever delivered? :)

Your one example is the Montreal Protocol. How does that -since 98% of all CFCs are gone, no longer produced- the ozone hole "problem" look, now?
You know, because you have to... Oh! No, you don't. You don't "do" science. You do logic, and dialectics... :)
I'm sorry my country didn't take on the Soviet Union at it's onset. (If we were going to be the World's Cop, we should have taken on the biggest, baddest bully on the block! -- But, wait! That was Great Britain, back then... Oops!) But Bolshies were an obvious problem.

But we're talking about AGW (it's the title of the thread...): You want me to convince you that your news media don't give you the means to understand a new and shaky science? :)
That's just silly: You don't have the education, the experience, or the intelligence -- even if I had the inclination.
And you have an animus that would keep you from using your "native" talents.

Give me just one paper published in a reputable journal that you think supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change... I'll read it, and then give you my take...
I'll give you a link to a paper by Judith Curry that -well, it should make you think! (But it won't. You don't like to do that... :) )

BTW: Create a general ocean/atmosphere circulation model of the earth's climate -- using syllogisms... :)
The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.
Ah! I see your moral imperative! "Should!"
Not does...

The real world is not your province. You prefer your high-school prejudices...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-30, 07:43:43

I won't bother to cite papers that noone will read, and few will understand. (Your politics don't interest me...) The "science" is corrupt; there are few who care anymore: The political "officers" are fighting for their survival, and we both know how hard they can fight!

So, you cannot be bothered to quote the unjustified extrapolations from corrupt science that have allegedly led IPCC reports to contain failed predictions. I generously still allow you the time and opportunity to find them though. They might be there, after all. I'd be interested.


Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?
Exactly so! The sensationalizing of "weather" without the background information and appropriate historical context leads profiteers to highlight individual events... Was Hurricane Katrina caused by AGW? The Sandy "Super Storm"? The tsunami that caused the devastation 'round the Fukushima nuclear power plant?

And are all these not examples of extreme weather? And the record temperatures, are they not genuine records?



Your one example is the Montreal Protocol. How does that -since 98% of all CFCs are gone, no longer produced- the ozone hole "problem" look, now?
You know, because you have to... Oh! No, you don't. You don't "do" science. You do logic, and dialectics... :)

Try again in English. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could be saying something important here.

Give me just one paper published in a reputable journal that you think supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change... I'll read it, and then give you my take...

No. You have said you already read things like that. And you said you cannot be bothered to quote them. I'm simply doing you justice by not burdening you more than you can bear.


I'll give you a link to a paper by Judith Curry that -well, it should make you think! (But it won't. You don't like to do that... :) )

And again, another missed opportunity to actually quote something.


The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.
Ah! I see your moral imperative! "Should!"
Not does...

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Go back to your desk and find a relevant quote. Your own knowledge base is too thin for this discussion.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-30, 08:56:38
"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.
Let's jump to the chase:
Read this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf), please.

(If you can understand this, I'll link to more "academic" papers... "Wicked Problems" are -mostly- important, ya know?
Do you care?)

"first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion" reminds me of something... Oh! Once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence! Three times is a Law of Nature... Superstition still reigns! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-06-30, 10:02:11
And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

And when it fails, you don't care; you are committed!. That's your version of science.

I am not committed. What happens is what happens.

The "model" has failed to work, for a great many years... Except in former Soviet Zone country pseudo-intelligentsia -- they would like to regain power. But they won't.

Your "model" hasn't held up.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-06-30, 11:26:42

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.
Let's jump to the chase:
Read this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf), please.

(If you can understand this, I'll link to more "academic" papers... "Wicked Problems" are -mostly- important, ya know?
Do you care?)

So, I scanned the paper for the word "model". Some quotes:

Quote from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf

The Kyoto Protocol was doomed from the beginning because it was modelled on plausible but inappropriate precedents.

[...]

iii) Misguided Models

[...]

The model for most of the post-war period was the Yalta and Potsdam summits, which shaped the post-World-War II world.

[...]

The classic model of summitry therefore developed with concentric circles of experts who supplied the decision-makers at the centre with the formulae and positions to negotiate.

Long story short, we are not talking about the same thing, dude. But this was already known. Try again. Give something new.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-01, 08:25:32
You and Google are on the same page: Un-intelligent search yields little of use -except accidentally- and intelligent search requires a knowledgeable and focused mind...
Google has a business model that makes it a lot of money. You have a fossilized viewpoint that makes you more and more alienated, both from those who'd teach you or learn from you and the advances made in the various sciences (including logic!).

Try reading this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf)... (Not "searching for key-words or "gotcha quotes" -- just to see what other intelligent people have discerned. It's not that long, and it's -at least- grammatically written... You can't spare a half-hour?) Then -if you'd like- we can get to the "science"...
(Although I can't imagine you being interested in such. :) )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I know it's the same paper -an essay, actually- linked to previously. But you are maddeningly Pavlovian in your reactions -- I'll keep ringing the bell as long as it takes! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-01, 09:02:31
We already established within two weeks that we are not talking about the same thing. I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science. We have already found out that you have absolutely nothing on the science of climatology, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Anything else? Any plans to address the actual topic at hand, i.e. the science, not the politics?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-02, 01:53:56
I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.
Not quite: That paper accepts the "science" you do (...I presume? :) You never seem to commit yourself to a position -- and yet you won't say you're undecided...). Before I get into matters of strictly scientific interest I'd like to know where we stand on policy issues and efficient strategies...
But I won't likely get my wish! :)

So: Shall we start here (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/)? (Or would you like to go as far back as MBH98?)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-09, 11:08:58

I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.
Not quite: That paper accepts the "science" you do (...I presume? :) You never seem to commit yourself to a position -- and yet you won't say you're undecided...). Before I get into matters of strictly scientific interest I'd like to know where we stand on policy issues and efficient strategies...
But I won't likely get my wish! :)

I noticed the paper mentions science only in passing, and insofar as it mentions it, it is not on your side, from which I determined that your point with the paper is only politics. And politics is the wish I will not grant you.


So: Shall we start here (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/)? (Or would you like to go as far back as MBH98?)

Sound criticism and I agree with it, even though it's a conveniently low blow that offers no alternative or correction. Everybody knows (or should know, at least since Edward Lorenz) that linear models don't (and can't) work in climatology. I have precisely the same criticism against conventional economics, so I completely agree with this criticism. However, notice the following.

- The point of the article is, "So, why are so much resources being invested in climate models? A very provocative paper by Shackley et al. addresses this question..." i.e. the point is political, not scientific.
- We (you and I) mean different things when we say "models" in climatology. When I say it, I mean e.g. greenhouse effect. When you say it, you mean trivial linear projections, as in the article. For self-evident reasons, such projections are necessarily as flawed in climatology as they are in economics.
- Models defined your way are not the basis of "global warming" concerns. Greenhouse effect is. The article does nothing to challenge this. IPCC reports are not reducible to predictions of rising mean temperature.
- Even assuming that the criticism is completely justified (which it isn't), it doesn't mean that sound climatology, including concerning "global warming", doesn't exist. It only means that most scientists have difficult time wrapping their minds around non-linear models. This is even more true in economics and with consistently far more catastrophic consequences. This doesn't mean that sound economists, comfortable with non-linear models and capable of predicting events like the 2008 global financial crisis, don't exist. They do.

By the way, where is your story of photons?
   
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-09, 22:14:18
Models defined your way are not the basis of "global warming" concerns. Greenhouse effect is.
Your view of the "science" of the greenhouse effect is religious or ideological... I admit that politics has greatly skewed climate science, and hence must often be taken into account. That doesn't mean that it's only politics:
Peruse this page (http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/06/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-transfer/#more-19219) (I recommend the third paper dealt with...). You have your dogma and the rites that have grown up around it! But I'm more concerned with the effects of the greenhouse gasses upon the climate.
And upon the policy prescriptions that, misunderstanding those, are advocated by true believer "environmentalists".

As someone once said, make things as simple as possible; but not simpler! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-10, 21:01:03

As someone once said, make things as simple as possible; but not simpler! :)

The article you gave was too simple though. Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-10, 22:20:49
Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Yes. We want photons! We want photons! We want photons! We want photons!

Sorry, I'm inspired by the Greeks.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-10, 22:47:00

Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Yes. We want photons! We want photons! We want photons! We want photons!

Sorry, I'm inspired by the Greeks.


Are you sure? Well-- OK. Have a free sample.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mountainproject.com%2Fimages%2F72%2F12%2F105907212_medium_ffa9aa.jpg&hash=1e504ac8618ed83bbaaa41561fbdf179" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mountainproject.com/images/72/12/105907212_medium_ffa9aa.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-10, 22:54:54
The article you gave was too simple though.
Oh? In what way was it too simple?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-10, 23:05:15

The article you gave was too simple though.
Oh? In what way was it too simple?

Low blow at linear models, while providing no suggestion to improve the field of study. Concentrating on the projections of the "rising mean temperature" while avoiding the main topic, i.e. environmental concerns, that which forms the bulk of IPCC reports.

Btw, where is your story of photons?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-10, 23:30:35
Low blow at linear models, while providing no suggestion to improve the field of study. Concentrating on the projections of the "rising mean temperature" while avoiding the main topic, i.e. environmental concerns, that which forms the bulk of IPCC reports.
Which paper did you read, ersi?

Quite some while ago, in another thread, I asked you a simple question: Does a photon have free will? (You didn't answer... I'd only wanted to see how much of an animist you were.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-11, 04:53:04

Quite some while ago, in another thread, I asked you a simple question: Does a photon have free will? (You didn't answer... I'd only wanted to see how much of an animist you were.)

I did. Now it's your turn. Write your story of photons and I will help you find the answer that I gave back then.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-11, 06:21:27
It doesn't matter to me... Likewise, your petty rhetorical points.

I ask you again: Which paper did you read? (The one I recommended was a PHD dissertation (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf)...) The main point of which I took to be that the effects of the so-called greenhouse effect are, well, dependent upon many other factors -- sometimes even resulting in a "negative greenhouse effect". And important, at that.
So, calculations predicated upon a doubling of atmospheric CO2 based upon laboratory experiments (...and computer models, i.e. current GCMs) using elementary physical properties are -at least- suspect.
Not for the cargo-cult set, of course. But as for myself -as someone who cares about science, among other things- I'd need something like, you know?, actual science? :)

What -ignoring my qualms about consensus science- would you want to see, to combat carbon pollution?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-11, 08:55:26

It doesn't matter to me... Likewise, your petty rhetorical points.

Which is a petty rhetorical point that doesn't matter to me.


I ask you again: Which paper did you read?

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education. Later, I have followed up the debates on the news and noticed the essential similarity of the substance of climatology with economics. I know economics better.

So, I know the math of climatology, but I don't know much about the specific concepts. For example "cP air" and "mP air" in your latest recommendation were news. 

As to the phenomenon itself, it was taught in primary school as common sense and I have seen nobody question it later. This is scientific consensus.


(The one I recommended was a PHD dissertation (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf)...)

Mkay. Giving it a read.


The main point of which I took to be that the effects of the so-called greenhouse effect are, well, dependent upon many other factors -- sometimes even resulting in a "negative greenhouse effect". And important, at that.

No, this is not the main point of the paper. Its main point is "...to provide an interpretation of the mechanisms involved in the formation of cP air, rather than to simulate the the observed characteristics of a particular case study. [...] Although the model results compare well with the observations of Gotaas and Benson, comparisons with other observations are needed to validate the model."

The "interpretation" mentioned in the previous quote consists in this, "The principal effect of subsidence on the temperature profiles is not caused by warming due to adiabatic compression, but by its effect on the moisture supply, thus influencing the radiative cooling."

How does any of this make greenhouse effect "so-called" or even "negative", I have no idea. What do you take greenhouse effect to be? Either give your brief description/definition of the greenhouse effect now or this discussion is suspended.*


What -ignoring my qualms about consensus science- would you want to see, to combat carbon pollution?

I.e. what would my politics be? You can keep dreaming.

* Better still, tell your tale of photons in the appropriate thread.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: tt92 on 2015-07-11, 09:20:46
I think that someone here believes that human activity is influencing our climate and that someone else here believes that human activity is not influencing our climate, but I am not sure.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-11, 12:05:37
This discussion is absurd.

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

Secondly, even analyzing the issue under an absurd approach and admitting they were right, even so, the general principle of precaution, due to the unsurmountable consequences of such disaster, would advice for prudence and reducing the human caused impact in the earth's climate balance, never to adopt behaviors that will inevitably rise such interference.

Thirdly, because sticking to limited and finite forms of fuels instead adopting and substituting for limitless ways of using energy without ecological footprint it's a crime against humanity and represents giving future generations no future.

And the last but not the least, because we should have a deep respect for all forms of live beings of the Creation and allow them for the needed habitat so they can prosper, not to exterminate species at the diabolic rhythm human race has been doing it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-11, 15:49:40

I think that someone here believes that human activity is influencing our climate and that someone else here believes that human activity is not influencing our climate, but I am not sure.

:jester: I believe in both, but I'm not sure, either.  :jester:
==========
And the last but not the least, because we should have a deep respect for all forms of live beings of the Creation

Hmmmmm...Adam and Eve? The talking serpent? Why don't they talk anymore?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-12, 01:57:17
My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.
That explains a lot... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-12, 02:15:18
Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.
(I assume you mean "opposition to the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" -- but that's just the most likely sense... :) ) Then, you prefer your conspiracy theory --or, propaganda, if you will!-- to actual science. Your welcome to it.
Secondly, even analyzing the issue under an absurd approach and admitting they were right, even so, the general principle of precaution, due to the unsurmountable consequences of such disaster, would advice for prudence and reducing the human caused impact in the earth's climate balance, never to adopt behaviors that will inevitably rise such interference.
By that maxim, you'd have to hop over every crack in the sidewalk -- to spare your mother's back... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-12, 06:35:37

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.
That explains a lot... :)

Such as?

By the way, where's your story of photons? Looks like I will have to create a signature about it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-12, 11:32:39
By that maxim, you'd have to hop over every crack in the sidewalk -- to spare your mother's back...  :)

The truth can be heard from the children's mouth - you finally said the truth, that for you the consequences of climate change are no different from cracks on the sidewalk that ruins your nice Italian imported shoes. American egocentrism above everything else no matter if it destroys the world.

Selfishness, immaturity and lack of responsibility, the way of the "Braves". :)
No need to keep on discussing this.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-12, 12:09:01

This discussion is absurd.


Agreed-- but maybe not for the reason you think.

Quote from: Belfrager

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.


OK. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt--- let alone a reasonable one--- that the above statement is in error.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

I also have doubts that reasonable doubt about CAGW is restricted in any way to the US-- but that's another issue.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-12, 12:55:40

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Based on your anti-CAGW performance on this site, you have no reason to expect any slice of the cake, not even a cookie. Shape up!

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with. Which is why I don't discuss the politics with him. It's much comfier to bash the politics of the science of economics, and stick to the actual science of climatology. Weather forecasts miss the mark often enough, but I am yet to see any conspiracy theories about it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-12, 13:01:44


Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Based on your anti-CAGW performance on this site, you have no reason to expect any slice of the cake, not even a cookie. Shape up!

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with. Which is why I don't discuss the politics with him. It's much comfier to bash the politics of the science of economics.


I don't get into stuff here much-- true. I'm a semi-regular commenter on WUWT though-- and Anthony Watts is as anti-CAGW as they come.

And-- for the record, no, I don't believe for one minute in the catastrophe-of-the-week stuff we hear about from the "We're all DOOOMMMMEEDDD" CAGW community. So--- where's my money???
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-12, 13:28:03
OK. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt--- let alone a reasonable one--- that the above statement is in error.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man.

Ok, I'll open a second league for those that helps the few I refer to get rich without ever seeing a centime. Feeling better? :)
As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

That my friend should be a motif of proud to you.
Do you know why there will be always slaves? because such people do whatever it's told to them to get that loan.
Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

You mean climate change being a political (anti American obviously) form of attack to their economics?
I also have doubts that reasonable doubt about CAGW is restricted in any way to the US-- but that's another issue.

Certainly it's not restricted to the US, (just wait and see what China is doing...) but is up to the US the bigger responsibility on constantly boycotting efforts to diminish environmental and climate disaster produced by human activity.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-12, 13:41:14

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

You mean climate change being a political (anti American obviously) form of attack to their economics?

He hasn't said anything too specific about it, so I don't know if his objections to the IPCC (which are, as far as can be determined, indeed purely political) only concern the funding of IPCC or go further into suspicions that IPCC is some devilish plow to attack the interests of American businesses. But yeah, very likely the latter too. 

Such is of course bs, because IPCC is funded by governments and governments are in bed with industries. So all the political corruption you see there reflects and stems from the same bedlife, and is not to do with "bad science". The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-12, 14:23:52
He hasn't said anything too specific about it,

He never says... :)
He prefers to let his mind fly away to some obscure place.
The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.

Yes it happens together with incompetency and intellectual fraud. The problem is they have to live under a private financing fund model so the pressure for "discovering" what the donors wants them to "discover" it's huge.

Somehow related with all this, you all know BP - British Petroleum. In a rather intelligent move their advertising started using BP - Beyond Petroleum some time ago.
That's the biggest demonstration they have no arguments against the environmental and climatic impact of using fossil fuels (besides a smart strategy for trying to keep riding the wave).

Just one more thing, I have no illusions that also pro environment organizations suffers from the same problems regarding being used to political objectives. Shakespeare said something alike "in times of adversity one finds strange bed company". I have no patience for Greenpeace for example.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-13, 06:03:15
He hasn't said anything too specific about it, so I don't know if his objections to the IPCC (which are, as far as can be determined, indeed purely political) only concern the funding of IPCC or go further into suspicions that IPCC is some devilish plo[t] to attack the interests of American businesses.
My objections to the IPCC are straightforward: Tasked with estimating the best understanding of "climate science", they quickly became an arm of anti-capitalist "environmentalism" evangelism! (That may sound a little harsh -- but each new Policy Summary made it plainer... But --Jeez! You know, it might be important...?!)
[Like I said, a while back, ersi: You're late to this discussion. I've been involved with it since the late '90s. What you "learned" in grade school needs up-dating! Start with AR3.
(Thinking that the Montreal Protocol was a repeatable big-government, multi-government "agreement" is -- well, it ain't gonna happen again: "Fool me once, shame on you!"...]
What about Global Warming/Climate Change convinces you?!

I'll mention a few things that don't convince me:
Their "evidence" is primarily GCM model predictions,
their predictions have been falsified,
noone seems to think we need better models...

Has it occurred to you that science requires a little bit more... More than politics? More than a consensus?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-13, 06:15:16
The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.Yes it happens together with incompetency and intellectual fraud. The problem is they have to live under a private financing fund model so the pressure for "discovering" what the donors wants them to "discover" it's huge.
Because regal largesse is such, and has been proven to be!, so, so much better at seeking "reality"... :)
The Government is God! God is the Government! (Trotski, I think... :) (Or maybe only a Sycamore scion!""You Can't Take It With You") who played the xylophone, badly!)

You know: I'm beginning to think that liberals in my country (and almost everyone in European countries)  just like bad xylophone playing... That's too bad.
You never heard of Lionel Hampton? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-13, 06:37:00

My objections to the IPCC are straightforward: Tasked with estimating the best understanding of "climate science", they quickly became an arm of anti-capitalist "environmentalism" evangelism! (That may sound a little harsh -- but each new Policy Summary made it plainer... But --Jeez! You know, it might be important...?!)

I.e. a conspiracy theory. I only accept conspiracy facts. You have to state who is gaining and what, so that it could be reasonably inferred that the conspiracy is real. Until then, dismissed.


I'll mention a few things that don't convince me:
Their "evidence" is primarily GCM model predictions,
their predictions have been falsified,
noone seems to think we need better models...

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

This has been the issue with you all the time. We have already established that we are not talking about the same thing. You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

As long as you don't say what you take greenhouse effect to be, dismissed.


Has it occurred to you that science requires a little bit more... More than politics? More than a consensus?

Science is other than politics. It's the politics that does things, whether justified by science or not. They need cooperation, but if you had power, you would be one of the main obstructionists. Anyway, there are enough people like you at power, so you can stay retired.

By the way, where is your story of photons?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-13, 06:52:19
Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?
That seems to have been the problem between us for a very long time: You think your "primary" education is sufficient... :)

You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.
Then, obviously, we should de-populate the oceans of fish... who both pee and defecate in the oceans! (You have proven yourself to be an idiot.)  Of course, it "doesn't take a scientist"... You wouldn't know one, if he was peeing on you! :)

BTW:
I.e. a conspiracy theory. I only accept conspiracy facts. You have to state who is gaining and what, so that it could be reasonably inferred that the conspiracy is real. Until then, dismissed.
Until you respond to reasonable questions, I'll banter; but your macho a macho frame is too stupid to take seriously...
I know that you didn't like the Soviets; but you're not smart enough to escape their indoctrination. (That makes me very sad.) Propaganda requires a willing mind.

Be well, ersi. (I will certainly not harm you...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-13, 07:36:47

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?
That seems to have been the problem between us for a very long time: You think your "primary" education is sufficient... :)

Of course primary education is not sufficient (for everything - and I said I have been following up matters), but it's naturally sufficient to beat your deficient vague nonsense.


You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.
Then, obviously, we should de-populate the oceans of fish... who both pee and defecate in the oceans! (You have proven yourself to be an idiot.)  Of course, it "doesn't take a scientist"... You wouldn't know one, if he was peeing on you! :)

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon, like fish in the sea. Why didn't you say so? This debate could have ended pages ago.


Until you respond to reasonable questions, I'll banter...

Why don't you stop bantering and ask a reasonable question for once? By reasonable, I mean a complete sentence. Your sentences always miss a crucial part. E.g. "There's no evidence. Their models have been falsified." It's really quite important to know what evidence and models you have in mind. As long as you mean evidence for warming and predictive models of that- as you must -, I will simply laugh you away, because they are not the main part of the IPCC reports.

Linear warming is the main part only for the denialist simpletons, because they like to ignore environmental issues and pick on something obvious. As I said, weather cannot be predicted even a week ahead, so it's a no-brainer to disregard "predictive models" trying to predict ahead more than that. This is why I don't take you seriously as long as that's what you mean by "models".

By the way, where's your story of photons?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: jseaton2311 on 2015-07-13, 16:54:14
Perhaps a little global warming will be useful very soon.

"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 - just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Guardian."  Go here for more.   (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030)  :knight:   :cheers:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-13, 19:16:38
I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing... But it remains to be seen how good it is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon
I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon -- and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: jseaton2311 on 2015-07-15, 20:07:55

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing... But it remains to be seen how good it is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon
I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon -- and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

If one considers CO2 and sulfur dioxide as pollutants then volcanic eruptions (major and minor), contribute the same pollutants as our factories and motor vehicles.  It's just that all of the volcanic activity around the globe accounts for less then 1% of the total amount of CO2 emissions caused by human activity (29 gigatons annually now).  The volcanic mega-eruption about 201 million years ago (brought on by tectonic forces ripping Pangaea apart), doubled the atmospheric CO2, raised global temperatures and acidified the oceans very quickly and caused 50% of living species to go extinct, but these are indeed rare (more rare than asteroid impacts). 

There is a distinction made between the natural land & sea CO2 emissions and human CO2 emissions--this is certainly more for clarification reasons than it is to be saying that human activity is not part of earth's natural phenomena.  In fact there has long been a distinction between what is caused by nature and that which recently has been brought on by humans.  The land & sea CO2 cycle of emission and absorption has been going on since life began and it has been very much in balance for a couple billion years.  Humans started adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere (only 40% is reabsorbed), a mere 120 years ago and so it is considered by many to not be a part of the long-standing "natural" cycle.  It is natural in my opinion, just very recent is all--not to mention the fact that humans have no free will to be anything but natural.   :knight:  :cheers:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-07-15, 20:38:04
Markets will regulate climate as they do with politics.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA5rwM4L.jpg&hash=2b37b2d5dcfcf7eb736538f4e09c3f6b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/A5rwM4L.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-15, 22:39:03
Markets will regulate climate as they do with politics.

Markets? or Merkels?

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-07-15, 23:28:49

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

After the South will manage to bankrupt us I'll seek for economic asylum.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-15, 23:33:48


Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

After the South will manage to bankrupt us I'll seek for economic asylum.

:lol: you can sit on the lap of your nazi wheel chair financial minister while you wait...
By the way, don't you want to sell more four of your submarine to Greece? more two to us? how many more millions of Mercedes, BMW's and the sort? How many more millions of pharmaceutical industry? Industry machines?
Do you really have something to say?

Was not for us and you'll be broken. Even the lousy dollar values the same as the Euro thanks to you.
Don't bother me while I concentrate upon the Anglo Saxons. After, I'll deal with the Germanics. One enemy at the time.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-07-15, 23:56:14

By the way, don't you want to sell more four of your submarine to Greece? more two to us? how many more millions of Mercedes, BMW's and the sort? How many more millions of pharmaceutical industry? Industry machines?
Do you really have something to say?

To be honest, I wouldn't sell you even a rusty nail anymore.
You didn't even pay for the goods you have received. It was paid from our tax money.
Up now it would be time to buy your goodies from our US friends.
Only exception would be some pharmaceutical products. I would give them for free (I mean paid with our tax money because the industry has nothing to give away).  Epidemics is the last thing Europe needs.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-07-17, 07:57:50
Only exception would be some pharmaceutical products. I would give them for free (I mean paid with our tax money because the industry has nothing to give away).  Epidemics is the last thing Europe needs.

Except for vaccinations, overuse of pharmaceutical products in e.g. France is what will cause an epidemic. What's important is things like proper sanitation infrastructure and access to it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-18, 09:51:37
Up now it would be time to buy your goodies from our US friends.

I buy nothing to anthropogenic global warmers while they don't convert into ecological fundamentalists, all them living in the woods.
Then, they will have nothing to sell.

Either Mankind finish with commerce or commerce will finish with Mankind. International Trade Treaties are the instrument of the alien take over and consequent destruction on Earth. They Live.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-07-18, 10:08:27
Either Mankind finish with commerce or commerce will finish with Mankind.

Put it on a t-shirt. ;)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-18, 10:12:48

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing... But it remains to be seen how good it is.

You have "heard of" the greenhouse effect, your opinion of it is "it remains to be seen", and you think you have something meaningful to say on this topic?


Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon
I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon -- and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

Of course I disagree, because we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural. Whereas my definition of "natural" acquires its meaning in contrast with "unnatural", same as order is defined in contrast with disorder, right in contrast with wrong, etc.

When industrial pollution is natural to you, there's nothing unnatural and "natural" has no meaning to you. For me it has a meaning. So we are not talking about the same thing.

By the way, where is your story of photons?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-18, 12:50:00
By the way, where is your story of photons?

Say that again.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fjennylincoln.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2FSorry-I-cant-Hear-You.jpg&hash=0f6a944a18439f9a721b828c83430768" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://jennylincoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Sorry-I-cant-Hear-You.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-18, 13:04:07
So he wants a story of photons.

"Helm, bring us about. New heading 222.4 . Arm photon torpedoes."

"Captain, target is in range."

"Good, get the shooting solution. Put on some speed."

"Target lock, we have a shooting solution."

"Fire torpedoes."

"Target destroyed, captain."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-18, 14:35:25
When industrial pollution is natural to you, there's nothing unnatural and "natural" has no meaning to you. For me it has a meaning. So we are not talking about the same thing.

America is drifting away from Europe. It happens with continents as well as with cultural concepts.

Strangely however, while cultural concepts approaches total emptiness the geographical land mass remains the same. Obviously it can't be that way, so the Country is actually shrinking but such fact is being hidden by Google Earth.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-19, 03:51:13
You have "heard of" the greenhouse effect, your opinion of it is "it remains to be seen", and you think you have something meaningful to say on this topic?
Please try to pay attention, ersi... Or use a modern browser or much bigger screen; or a better memory... :) This is what I referred to:
"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 - just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Guardian."  Go here for more.   (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030)
Solar physics is not a specialty of mine... But models that make good (or bad) predictions are.
For instance, Arrhenius' toy model of the greenhouse effect is good basic physics -- and all but worthless as the basis of a predictive climate model. (Note: I don't say weather...) It is suitable for teaching grade-school children some basic physics; it is not suitable for a programme of intergovernmental curbs on fossil fuel energy -- or industry in general. :)

Sometimes important things are more complicated than what an elementary education can encompass.
[...] we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural.
No. My definition includes reality! Man --as does every other organism on Earth-- affects its environment; you have some "moral" scruple that requires Man to be beyond such... (Perhaps, in time, you -we- may have the knowledge and power to be so.) Industrial pollution is something industrialized countries have been dealing with better and better! Poorer countries new to industrialization will learn. It takes time... Relative wealth is a requirement.
Or you take Man (at least, most of the poor nations...) to be dispensable. (I politely disagree!)
Whereas my definition of "natural" acquires its meaning in contrast with "unnatural", same as order is defined in contrast with disorder, right in contrast with wrong, etc.
Left in contrast with right? Dorsal... You do love your dichotomies, don't you? :) Your definitional school-boy games are -it seems- all you have.
Too bad! You've a mind that could have profited from an education.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whereas my definition of natural acquires its meaning in contrast with unnatural," you said, ersi... The obverse is not the only possibility. (Except in your anemic logic... :) ) I'd like to consider the likely-hood that your "definition" is predicated upon a predetermined outcome: Man, bad; "nature", good!
So. Argue that! :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"order is defined in contrast with disorder" you said! Only by hide-bound adherents to the "dichotomy" heresy... (Your language is the limit only of your world; you needn't be so parochial!)

Order is a statistical concept. (If you don't know that...) How can disorder be defined? :) Should it be defined as the differences noted between what was expected and what happened? :)
Naw! Then, you'd have to mention -and maybe deal with- theories that the mainstream doesn't want to notice...
You think you can understand the world by parsing the dictionary? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just watched the latest episode of the TV show "Hannibal"... A character said: -- well, I forget who it was and what was said. Suffice it to say, evil will out!
(Or the opposite.)

Of course, that's not right... Did anyone else watch it? Might someone else know what I'd thought I'd gleaned?
Probably not. There's only a few billion people who might have watched the show; likely, tens of millions. And how many would see my query?
Few, to none.

Does anyone actually have anything to say? (And how could this have anything to do with a "theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming [climate change]"?

Give me data and theories that lead me to conclusions!
Don't give me corrupted data, models that don't accurately predict anything...and "scientists" who play politics, for a living!

Or agree with ersi, at least insofar as -as a rule- disagreeing with me. His "agenda" is his own. If you've adopted it, please explain it to us others...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-19, 06:30:44

Please try to pay attention, ersi... Or use a modern browser or much bigger screen; or a better memory... :) This is what I referred to:

You didn't quote to whom you were responding to, so I couldn't know if you were responding to JS or to me which is your long-neglected duty.


For instance, Arrhenius' toy model of the greenhouse effect is good basic physics -- and all but worthless as the basis of a predictive climate model. (Note: I don't say weather...) It is suitable for teaching grade-school children some basic physics; it is not suitable for a programme of intergovernmental curbs on fossil fuel energy -- or industry in general. :)

If you mean Arrhenius' equation, then you are absolutely hopeless. Arrhenius didn't suggest a greenhouse model, but a single characteristic to the model.


Sometimes important things are more complicated than what an elementary education can encompass.

So, since you are discussing climatology far below elementary education level, I can conclude that it's simply not important to you.


[...] we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural.

No. My definition includes reality! Man --as does every other organism on Earth-- affects its environment; you have some "moral" scruple that requires Man to be beyond such... (Perhaps, in time, you -we- may have the knowledge and power to be so.) Industrial pollution is something industrialized countries have been dealing with better and better! Poorer countries new to industrialization will learn. It takes time... Relative wealth is a requirement.

So, man does things, sleeps, yawns, eats, kills, pollutes. Rules and policies are unnecessary because rich nations with more wealth are automatically better nations. You have no moral scruples - and that's reality. Got it.


Or you take Man (at least, most of the poor nations...) to be dispensable. (I politely disagree!)

Men without moral scruples don't have that thing with which they could legitimately agree or disagree with others. And you are increasingly unable to put together coherent sentences that would merit any agreement or disagreement.

Let's have the story of photons instead.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-19, 07:16:32
There was the double-slit experiment. Then there was the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. You -of course- fall back upon the physics of your elders, and you don't understand them!
I'd ask you again: Does the photon have "free will"?
What I wanted to find out was what you thought to be "free will"...
(I was not really trying to trap you: I don't care, if you are like James, and I don't care if you are uninformed.

I could respond to ersi... But what would my response mean, when everyone knew it was directed at a juvenile...? (Surely, most of you do? [No, you don't: You are weird juvenile people...
I'd let you grow.
I can do!

Ask me... (The most fearsome request on the Internet!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, some people don't know what I mean. (I might be drunk...)

But I mean well! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-19, 09:37:21
Sober up and reread my story of photons https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=425.msg29551#msg29551

Then serve up yours. Until then, you are not worthy of further attention.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-19, 11:19:26
So, man does things, sleeps, yawns, eats, kills, pollutes. Rules and policies are unnecessary because rich nations with more wealth are automatically better nations. You have no moral scruples - and that's reality. Got it.

Richer and better being synonymous it's typical of materialism. When a society is built upon the cult of success and money it's not expected to find moral values. Praxis it's all that exists, not Ethos.
Things are measured by it's quantity not by it's quality.

Anyway I believe that moral values are innate at all human beings and outside the forum-warriors people are different.
Internet turns pacific people into blood thirsty vampires. It's a mind control therapy so they don't turn against the rulers. Like football in Europe.

In such scenario, discussions between different cultural backgrounds are often not possible.
And the climate is changing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-07-22, 01:49:24
I noted a small news item the other day that confirmed that the Arctic due to cooling has more ice.....
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-22, 06:26:22
Sober up and reread my story of photons [...suitable for highschoolers! If you don't mind the physical mis-interpretation...].

Then serve up yours. Until then, you are not worthy of further attention.

Your attention, ersi, is neither a goal nor a requirement, for me: You don't seem to have either the interest or the education required to focus upon the effects -which is the point, isn't it?- of the IPCC's "Save the Planet by Limiting Global Warming to +2ºC Pre-Industrial Temperature!"
First, there's the problem of understanding the true (and quite complicated) effects of the various greenhouse gasses - in situ: Water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone, etc. (Note the Ph.D. thesis that provided a compelling explanation for the anomalous temps in the Antarctic...) The basic physics isn't that hard; but the basic physics isn't a substitute for understanding -- but for a few zealots.
A pound of feathers and a pound of lead both weigh a pound. But, other things being equal, throwing each will not yield similar results... Of course, other things are seldom equal. That doesn't change Newton's derivative for gravity on the Earth, a simple equation. It does, however, engender some caution among those who "play" in the real world.
Second, the focus upon a doubling of atmospheric CO2 seems -to me- to skirt the first criticism: We've pre-judged the likely culprit; now, we just want to convict him and hang him! (Does the actual science provide even a "preponderance of the evidence" verdict that won't be overturned on appeal? :)
Third, the policy issues and the risk management issues are hopelessly confused by the presumption of global -rather than regional- effect. That is, they have become ideological rather than rational, hence not really amenable to scientific expertise.

That is what I think we're dealing with, like it or no. But the science of climatology remains interesting to me!
(I won't give you links to published papers -- you don't read them; or you don't understand them. But you can re-publish your highschool essays! I'll probably read them: This site has become pretty dull... :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: tt92 on 2015-07-22, 06:32:18

I noted a small news item the other day that confirmed that the Arctic due to cooling has more ice.....

I also believe that a 24-hour cycle of light and dark periods has been detected in much of the world.
It warrants further study.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-22, 07:37:56
 :) You wouldn't give an old Scot the "benefit" of his vernacular... ?

In a similar vein, warming is expected to be more noticeable in colder climes! (It's true...) And what's up with the troposphere (https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)? (This is Cook's site...) The comments are fun! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-22, 12:33:16

Sober up and reread my story of photons [...suitable for highschoolers! If you don't mind the physical mis-interpretation...].


It's all the more sad that high school level is too hard for you. Our discussions should reasonably be at least on high school level.


Your attention, ersi, is neither a goal nor a requirement, for me: You don't seem to have either the interest or the education required to focus upon the effects -which is the point, isn't it?- of the IPCC's "Save the Planet by Limiting Global Warming to +2ºC Pre-Industrial Temperature!"

I have been talking about the effects all along. You haven't.


First, there's the problem of understanding the true (and quite complicated) effects of the various greenhouse gasses - in situ: Water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone, etc. (Note the Ph.D. thesis that provided a compelling explanation for the anomalous temps in the Antarctic...) The basic physics isn't that hard; but the basic physics isn't a substitute for understanding -- but for a few zealots.

See your own level of discussion here? You say that the understanding of greenhouse effect does not consist in "physics" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but, for a thousandth time, you are not saying what the understanding consists in. This is a persistent logical impediment with you that at the same time counts as a deficiency in social skills.


A pound of feathers and a pound of lead both weigh a pound. But, other things being equal, throwing each will not yield similar results... Of course, other things are seldom equal. That doesn't change Newton's derivative for gravity on the Earth, a simple equation. It does, however, engender some caution among those who "play" in the real world.

And who is throwing stuff up in the air? The pipes of heavy industry are not doing it? Or is it so that they are doing it but somehow we can rest assured it has no effect?


Second, the focus upon a doubling of atmospheric CO2 seems -to me- to skirt the first criticism: We've pre-judged the likely culprit; now, we just want to convict him and hang him! (Does the actual science provide even a "preponderance of the evidence" verdict that won't be overturned on appeal? :)

And the actual science is to be had how? The detractors are to be taken far more seriously than consensus? Is this how science works? You haven't even proven that any "models made consistently wrong predictions". In economics, the "models" are so fundamentally flawed that they don't call it predictions. They call it "forecast" like in weather. And we all know how lousy weather forecasts are. So, seriously, "predictions" is not what (global) climatology is even about! It's about how the atmospheric structure works.

And I repeat that the issue is about ecology. It's a self-evident moral imperative (provided that we are talking human to human) that industry should clean up after itself. Moreover, it would be rational from the point of view of the self-same industry. For example, everybody knows that fossil fuels are limited and will end up soon enough. Why waste them faster rather than be more sparing?


Third, the policy issues and the risk management issues are hopelessly confused by the presumption of global -rather than regional- effect. That is, they have become ideological rather than rational, hence not really amenable to scientific expertise.

False. Ozone depletion was global. Acid rains from United States affect the entire continent and the Pacific. Call that "regional".


(I won't give you links to published papers -- you don't read them; or you don't understand them. But you can re-publish your highschool essays! I'll probably read them: This site has become pretty dull... :) )

You are dull because you cannot even put together a simple story of photons.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-22, 12:56:02
Quote
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
If the North Pole ice cap melts, it will raise up Sarah Palin and a great deal of the Alaskan shores.
============

Coastal towns and villages report rapidly eroding coastlines, resulting in loss of homes, streets, businesses, and even graveyards.

Storm surges cause short-term flooding that damages homes and community facilities, and can push small boats some distance inland from the sea.

Increased seasonal flooding accelerates shoreline erosion, and in a few cases entire villages are being forced to begin moving to higher ground.

Rapid erosion has threatened homes and forced emergency evacuations.

Six Alaska communities are planning partial or total relocation, and 160 have been identified as threatened by climate-related erosion by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps estimates relocation costs at $30 to $50 million per village.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-22, 20:44:33
For example, everybody knows that fossil fuels are limited and will end up soon enough. Why waste them faster rather than be more sparing?
I see you're a fan of Ehrlich-type Malthusianism... What "everybody knows" is often simply wrong.
You are free to be a hunter/gatherer, ersi. But you over-step when you insist others become or remain so...

BTW: There is no "Global Ecology"... Even short of the Cult of Gaia.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-22, 21:26:55

What "everybody knows" is often simply wrong.

May very well be, but how do you know that? More emphatically, how do you know that? Thus far you have not managed to support anything you say, so, insofar as track record matters, you know nothing. And it's good that you are not the majority.

In science you have to have to provide evidence. In philosophy you have to face the conclusions of your own thinking. You have neither evidence or relevant conclusions. You have only denialism, "Everybody is wrong except me. Nobody knows anything except me."

Have a scientific article: NASA faked the moon landing--Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-23, 00:47:57
I tried to interest people in discussing that paper when it first came out; ditto its follow-up... (That is but one example of what I meant when I said you got here late... But you're so literal-minded you thought I meant this thread on this site!) If you've read it, you know that it is a piece of ad hominem polemic masquerading as a scientific paper; worse, it is statistically inept. (Lewandowsky has moved on, to a different institution -- not to actual science. :) He remains an incompetent.)

How do I know that "what everybody knows" is often wrong? Experience, ersi, experience! Remember the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth? Or Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? Futurists like Gregory Bateson?
(Remember Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa? :) )
Most Scientologists went much beyond Dianetics  (which really wasn't much sillier than Psychoanalysis...) to embrace a loony cult. I've watched Environmentalism become just another loony cult...

BTW: I hear the catch-phrase is again Global Warming... (It seems Climate Change wasn't rhetorically effective.) The target remains the same: Fossil fuels, because of atmospheric CO2, must be dispensed with, soonest!
What's with that Peak Oil theory?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-23, 06:32:12

How do I know that "what everybody knows" is often wrong? Experience, ersi, experience! Remember the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth? Or Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? Futurists like Gregory Bateson?
(Remember Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa? :) )
Most Scientologists went much beyond Dianetics  (which really wasn't much sillier than Psychoanalysis...) to embrace a loony cult. I've watched Environmentalism become just another loony cult...

So, you know from experience that IPCC is a loony cult of Environmentalists like Scientology? Thanks for being clear for once.

Now I can say I know from experience that you are clearly a loon.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sparta on 2015-07-23, 07:03:38
i think this thread is degraded into goobledygook
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-24, 00:03:49
It has, Sparta!
So, you know from experience that IPCC is a loony cult of Environmentalists like Scientology?
How is this a fair interpretation of what I said? :)
The IPCC is a political body designed to craft and promote international governmental solutions -- to whatever problems they can find... The scientists involved are selected by their governments; the "science" they review is -usually- their own.
Saying this of course takes the conversation beyond "the science". By the same token, focusing upon actual science -good or bad- is taken to be immoral, since "pollution" is bad! And everyone knows that pollution is bad! So, if your focus isn't upon evil polluters, you're abetting the crime!

Two simple questions:
One, do we understand the Earth's climate system (if there even is such a thing, beyond statistical games...) well enough to forecast and assign agency to catastrophic "tipping points"?
Two, is the warming resulting from the doubling of atmospheric CO2 correctly understood and accurately quantified?

Note who won't consider such questions...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-07-24, 00:16:45
Nothing like a bit of gobblygook to remind us all we aren't perfect!  :lol:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-24, 01:06:17
I fancy an argument could be made that a good bit of global warming is being caused by this thread. Think of all the hot air that is being unleashed by both sides! Merciful God, no wonder they say it's getting hotter.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-07-24, 11:25:19

Think of all the hot air that is being unleashed by both sides!
It stinks really. :left:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-24, 15:30:22

How is this a fair interpretation of what I said? :)

It's based on exactly what you said. Here's more.


The IPCC is a political body designed to craft and promote international governmental solutions -- to whatever problems they can find...

No. They were put together in order to address a problem that was already known. There's not a single UN body that has been put together just in case, "whatever problems they can find".

So, you woke up with the wrong foot, to put it nicely.


By the same token, focusing upon actual science -good or bad- is taken to be [snip]

Define "actual science". (Not holding my breath. You are known to never define anything.)


[...]immoral, since "pollution" is bad! And everyone knows that pollution is bad! So, if your focus isn't upon evil polluters, you're abetting the crime!

Why scare quotes? And on what moral system is pollution good or at least indifferent? (Not holding my breath on this point either.)


Two simple questions:
One, do we understand the Earth's climate system (if there even is such a thing, beyond statistical games...) well enough to forecast and assign agency to catastrophic "tipping points"?

Yes, we do. Except for denialists like you. The denialists have several strategies. They say that (1) they don't understand agency and causality in this case, or (1a) there's no way to attribute agency and causality in this case, (2) that the whole issue is a statistical game for political purposes, not science employed to assess environmental concerns and industrial pollution or (2a) pollution doesn't exist, at most only "pollution" does, and (3) there's something called "actual science" that never gets a fair review.

You have used all these strategies.


Two, is the warming resulting from the doubling of atmospheric CO2 correctly understood and accurately quantified?

It's about warming only in the sense similar like the ECB policy is about inflation. Inflation is what it is, the purpose of the ECB is to maintain "inflation rates of below, but close to, 2% over the medium term". Similarly, the panel has decided on a politically feasible tagline citing an easy measure of the complex thing (climatology) they are dealing with. This does not change the nature of climatology nor the science about climatology. The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe. 

IPCC says, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen." Now, let's have your "actual science" about this statement.


Note who won't consider such questions...

...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-25, 02:32:08
It's based on exactly what you said.
Cut-and-paste of consecutive words from the sentences from two paragraphs, deleting inconvenient quantifications and qualifications, and conflating (at least...) two topics -- this is not "based" on exactly what I said, except in the Hollywood movie sense: "Based upon a true story."
They [the IPCC] were put together in order to address a problem that was already known.
No, sir! The problem was hypothesized... And once the "culprit" was identified -to the satisfaction of the political actors- they never looked back.
About understanding "the climate system and probable tipping points" I maintain that we don't understand much - yet.
Yes, we do. Except for denialists like you.
The only evidence that we have such understanding is the suite of GCMs whose skill (ability to correctly predict the future...) is poor, at best.
Calling atmospheric CO2 a pollutant is a gross mis-identification; as is calling those who are unconvinced of your [the IPCC's] position "deniers". (You know the rhetorical genesis of the term... :( ] But it serves the purpose: Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is clear about this:
Quote
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Similarly, the panel has decided on a politically feasible tagline citing an easy measure of the complex thing (climatology) they are dealing with.
Is "politically feasible tagline" the same thing as BS science? (I'd say Yes! For many reasons...) But let's not forget Alinsky's RULE 2:
Quote
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

This does not change the nature of climatology nor the science about climatology.
Indeed, it does! When professional (i.e., academic...) climatologists are required to agree with a politically pre-determined outcome of research, science becomes "science"... (Examples include Ptolemaic epicycles and Lysenko-ism.)
The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe.
The IPCC only cites what a select group of scientists report... (Remember "Hide the Decline"? Even true believers can be censored, if their science doesn't fully support "the science," eh? :) ) And as anyone who's read the third, fourth and fifth assessments knows: Environmentalist (wack-o) groups often pose (...the IPCC's reviewers accept Groucho-glasses as a sufficient disguise!) as scientists. (How are the Arctic polar bears doing, eh? :) Have the Himalayan ice caps melted yet? :) Has New York's Manhattan Island been inundated? :) Or Florida's Electoral College prowess diminished, because its coastal areas are submerged now? :) What's up, with Arctic sea ice? With the Antarctic's inland ice cover? With it's extent into the surrounding ocean? :) )
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."
The Earth's atmosphere (and, likely, oceans) have been warming since the last ice age ended; but only persistently, that is, they warm, they cool, they warm, they cool... Is the overall trend warming? Of course. Until the near approach of the next ice age...
(I especially like their "since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia"... One of those observed changes is the credulity of ideological "environmentalists"! :) But they are not anomalous, when compared to other religions...)
The amounts of snow and ice are equivocal, so far. (You'd use ideology to determine this... :) I'd use -you know, like- measurement. ) Sea levels have been steadily increasing since long before the Industrial Revolution, at a fairly steady rate -- a rate that actual measurements support. But, since the GCMs "predict" more (under certain scenarios), more it is! (My advice to you: Grow gills! You'll be as safe under that regime as under your preferred international governmental pollution police state...

Now, let's have your "actual science" about this statement.
You mean that predicted but unrealized increases/decreases need more than measurements...? Hm. Let me think. Uh, no!
What happens happens.
Of course, one can offer legitimate or ad hoc emendations to the theories, in such cases. But that means -necessarily!- starting from scratch, in terms of predictions. Unless I miss my guess, the IPCC (and you) would prefer to play the game of moving the goalpost...

By all means, let every locality deal with pollution as best they can. (The richer they become, the more able they'll be...) As I'm sure you know, Oxygen is a potent corrosive! It's in the same sense that Carbon-dioxide is a "pollutant": Context matters!
Not, of course, for ideological issues; one of which the environmentalists have claimed as their own: The evil of fossil fuels -- which have created the most pervasive and extensive wealth and well-being this little planet has ever known. (Well, for us humans. I'm not sure how the dinosaurs would -or would have- felt! But feel free to "advocate" boy-o!)

I suppose we'll not converse again -- you have nowhere to go with your ideological position; and you have nothing more than such.

Welcome to the real world! (Oh! You won't accept that? Oops! For you!) Wouldn't you just love to be under the yolk of the Soviets again... :(
Dear heart, you can't have your cake and eat it, too!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-25, 07:38:04

It's based on exactly what you said.
Cut-and-paste of consecutive words from the sentences from two paragraphs, deleting inconvenient quantifications and qualifications, and conflating (at least...) two topics -- this is not "based" on exactly what I said, except in the Hollywood movie sense: "Based upon a true story."

Re-read what you said back then. What are the "inconvenient quantifications and qualifications" there? You provided references to Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth, Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa, Dianetics and loony cults. That was the whole story! And this post of yours continues in the same vein, ridiculing as per Alinsky's rule 12 that you quote.


They [the IPCC] were put together in order to address a problem that was already known.

No, sir! The problem was hypothesized...

So, e.g. acid rains were imagined? Ozone depletion was imagined?


The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe.
The IPCC only cites what a select group of scientists report...

And the right way would be....?


"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."
The Earth's atmosphere (and, likely, oceans) have been warming since the last ice age ended; ...

Yeah, never respond to what was actually said. When they say "1950s", you say "ice age". Brilliant.

See, you are only on the politics of the thing. You have nothing on the science. Nothing. The scientists report whatever they report. If you want to counter them, you will have to be somewhat scientific, not loony cult religious ideological as you are - because you just called them that, and this is a sign of belonging to a loony cult yourself. And here you are doing it again,


One of those observed changes is the credulity of ideological "environmentalists"! :) [...] You'd use ideology to determine this... [...]  international governmental pollution police state... [etc.]

You are absolutely intent on not addressing the science. You cannot make it any clearer, it's perfectly clear already. Even photons are far beyond your powers.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-25, 11:16:27
I'm waiting for jax to post a map with the distribution all over the world of pró and contra Climate Changing positions.

An image it's better than a thousand words...
Where's jax when we need him? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-25, 20:22:23
So, e.g. acid rains were imagined? Ozone depletion was imagined?
Would either problem have been "solved" by a world-wide ecological treaty?
But what -other than rhetoric- makes CO2 similar? Oh, I know: You wish everyone would revert to hunter/gatherer modes of existence! They're not real people, else; because you can't do much else... :)
Cain slew Abel. What follows, on your logic...?
@Belfrager: The problem with "pretty" pictures is that they often lie! If you're too stupid (or too smart) to read the science, keep your opinions to -- the interwebs! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-25, 21:38:26
keep your opinions to -- the interwebs!  :)

What is the "interwebs"?
You know me, I don't use google, wikipedia and all those Anglo Saxon methods of censorship information. I prefer to rely on you, a real person. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-07-26, 23:30:36
Regarding my earlier note on the Arctic it seems that freezing increased in 2013 by 43%. Must be annoying for all the heat fanatic minds.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-27, 00:17:15
This is one time I have to side with RJHowie (will wonders never cease).

These last few years, if the computer models had held true, there should have been no ice cover-- or very little-- on the Great Lakes.

Well--- about that: The 2013/2014 Winter season saw nearly 95 percent ice coverage on the lakes as a whole. Superior froze over completely, Michigan and Huron (which function for all practical purposes as one lake) saw coverage in the 97 percent range, and no Great Lake was without significant coverage. Lake levels rose because there wasn't much evaporation that winter.

Then, in the 2014/2015 Winter season--- let's try for a repeat. Almost complete ice coverage. Lake levels rise because of slowed evaporation during the winter.

Those computer models need to be tweaked. They didn't match what really happened.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-27, 17:35:53
Such global processes don't necessarily happen with the click of one's fingers.
From 2012.....
Quote
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere - the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Earlier...
Quote
In the scientific field of climate studies - which is informed by many different disciplines - the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change - and that's nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).


It's very hot on my patio this afternoon, 95º F. Global cooling is not responsible. Tennessee's icebergs are almost gone.
================================
You might find these interesting.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm (https://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2F%2Fpics%2F2015Toon30.jpg&hash=f27acb60bbf95f4ca53dac9e547f7b81" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2015Toon30.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-27, 21:27:03
the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe
The odds? :) The odds of this happening (since nothing ever happens by simple chance...) is -if indeed it did happen- 1. That is, 100%.
Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Oreskes is a historian/activist... Read her analysis of the role prediction-mode for GCMs (http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/oreskes-naomi/PhilIssuesModelAssessOreskes.pdf) to get a better idea of her credentials, please. (If you're pressed for time, section 3.2.1 will suffice...) Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
From the paragraph ending on pg. 30:
Quote
Although this was a model of a physical system, human activity was decisive in undermining its predictive capacity.
Unless I mis-read her description of the study, it was a trends only type of "economics" -- which is just plain silly.
How does one justify trends-only models as "physical"? :) Voodoo, maybe!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-27, 22:00:02
Try this.
https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science (https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-07-27, 23:23:00
And my Illinois associate doesn't even drink Irn Bru to have something in common! Anyway more seriously we can of course all remember that years ago the "experts" were giving desperate warnings that the planet was going downhill into a drastic cold time and towards a new for of ice age. Must have been a quick one as I don't remember it happening.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-28, 01:02:30
Try this.
I listened to it again... It was as silly as I remembered: She should stick to history, and leave philosophy of science alone. And dispense with her pretensions to credentialed activism.
But some people really go for that postmodern schtick! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-28, 05:52:41
If all the great names of the past that build all of mankind's common knowledge were born today the human race would be dumber than monkeys.
We live the times of obscurantism, everything being itself and it's contrary when no right voices can emerge from oceans of cacophony and apathy.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-28, 06:50:13
As I said:
Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances!  :)
I'm quite familiar with her work -- published and podcast... She is a major instigator of bad science. Presumably, she doesn't know any better.
Try this.
The usual drivel... (https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science)
This sort of thing may impress some people. (If you're new to it -and you last much longer- you'll tire of it soon enough; if philosophy of science was an interest of yours from your early teens you'd not have been impressed... Oreskes is not all that unusual in her field, where logic is much too restricting a discipline.)

Consider: She calls the hypothetical/deductive method the Standard (Model of the) Scientific Method.
The problems she finds with this are
About the first, note that confirmation is necessary but not sufficient... So, her little problem with the Standard Theory of the Scientific Method is childish, given her age and education. If she doesn't know better, she should be spanked; if she does, she should be slapped.
If she knew a little bit of elementary logic, she'd have not been so silly. How could she not have read Popper? (Not to mention Reichenbach and Nagel?)

The second point is one of the reasons Science succeeds! Determining the scope of a model -after its failure- in terms of unexamined factors is how we make models better. Of course, models can still be deficient yet not fail. (Call it a problem of under-determination...) Such is why causal models are so prized: when the mechanism that supports a prediction is seen, agreement between prediction and observation are required to be very close!

The third "failure" she sees in the Standard Model is usually discussed in introductory philosophy courses, those meant for students who will likely never open a book of philosophy again even if they become academics... It's usually used in propositional logic texts: The Context of Discovery vs. the Context of Justification.

Oreskes seems continually confused about these simple things... Is that what Harvard has come to? Probably.

Her arguments for Consensus are -- all one's she herself has shot down before... :)

She mentions some examples...? Cars. Well, I'll mention one: CFD.
Modern aircraft design does make use of Computational Fluid Dynamics. I've heard the argument that General (Air/Ocean) Circulation Models of the Earth's climate are much the same...
We trust CFD results, so why shouldn't we trust GCM results? I've flown on jets likely designed by CFD many times, and felt not a twinge of "philosophical" unease!

Am I, then, irrational? :)

No, I don't think so! No jet I flew on went into production -- before wind-tunnel testing and prototyping... And what is quaintly called "flight testing".

Test pilots are crazy! But they're not irrational.
Oreskes is irrational -- but she may not be crazy: She's got a good gig that pays well, and finds appreciative audiences -- much like Barnum showed people the awesome Egress! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-28, 18:05:42
Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what. Also, a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false.

You are quick to denounce and deny things, but I don't remember you ever defending a thesis by presenting a complete argument.

In Oakdale's world, everybody sucks and Oakdale himself is indefensible.

I will put photons at rest. You are unforgivable, but they are innocent.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 05:15:04
Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what.
Play with your syllogisms some more; you apparently have yet to master them!
You don't get what I'm saying, because it contradicts what you believe -- and your arguments for what you believe are insufficient...
(Of course, in your favor is the likelyhood that you've never committed yourself to an actual opinion on the topic --AGW, remember? :)-- and so can contradict yourself at will, for your odd purposes...)
You are quick to denounce and deny things [...]
"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.
Stick to marketing and opinion polls, ersi. You've no head for science.
a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false
Her logic (re philosophy of science) is deficient. And she purports to overcome its deficiencies for her "cause" -- fighting AGW. But her efforts defeat themselves.
(BTW: She's also a professor of the history of science at Harvard... So, yes, it pains me to see and hear her inanely justified advocacy.)
Go ahead and symbolize her argument for believing consensus science in syllogisms and see what you get! Is it too complicated for your medieval logic? :)
(Or don't, and continue your ad hominem tack -- it does seem to suit you!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-29, 06:33:19

"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.

I am all for careful study and for findings in the process. The issue with you is that you are absolutely unable to share what your careful study consisted in. You have not demonstrated how you found AGW to be wrong or false. You simply assert it, without evidence. The only evidence you have is one (1) opinionated statistician. The one (1) scientist you cited did not disprove AGW, only doubted the appropriateness of predictions. You thought I wouldn't spot the difference? But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics (a la "IPCC is a loony environmentalist cult, they are killing our progress"), not the science.

So there. Still nothing. You will never get to proving your case. I have long since stopped waiting. I'm happy enough to have clarified that you have nothing on offer.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 10:18:09
But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics [...], not the science.
Perhaps your appreciation of the science is too rudimentary for you to "notice" any references... Sobeit!

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-29, 21:41:30
Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!

What a piece of crap, American pseudo philosophical/scientific/whatever writing for American readers. It deserves no more commentaries.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-07-29, 22:18:54

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!

The first sentence behind the link says politics. Your primary focus was always politics, not the science, and also not the philosophy of science. You have nothing new, nothing relevant.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-30, 05:55:36
You have nothing new, nothing relevant.
:) I'm just accommodating your prejudice, ersi!

@Belfrager: You don't think Lindzen worth listening to? :) Who would you suggest? Pope Francis? :)

For both of you two: Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)... Is it more to your liking? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-30, 21:43:14
Who would you suggest? Pope Francis?  :)

For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.

Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)... Is it more to your liking? :)

It's difficult to disagree with, can you do it properly substantiated?
Uncertainty and how we deal with it it's a fascinating subject by the way. That's much closer to the philosophy of science that you say to love so much than the previous bs you linked to.

Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated and are not "a Chinese/European/Rest of the World invention to finish with American economic capacity" as you do. At this discussion your position has been totally obscurantist and at the border of schizophrenia.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-31, 05:35:07
For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.
Of course, you pulled that statistic out of your ass! :) Specially considering that less than a third of the world's population is Christian, let alone Catholic. (Or do you mean to say that stupidity is so prevalent... :) )
Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated [...]
To what extent? (Or is that question too complicated for you? If "human driven climatic alterations" is within 2% of any measurable metric, why should we care? Perhaps a 2% change makes a huge difference -- shouldn't that relative difference be reasonably quantified by actual predictions and compared with actual measurements? Now, realize that the usual "climatologists" meme has to be contrasted with a 0.02% change... And, even so, the models upon which they rely fail; at least for almost the last 20 years.
I appreciate that GCMs generally start at 30-year runs. (Their funding doesn't... :) ) What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data. Talk about schizophrenia!
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 22:55:36 (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg43781#msg43781)Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)... Is it more to your liking?  :) 
It's difficult to disagree with [...]
Sure it is! (Unless you're a sheep...) Baa!
For humans, that means a little more than you do... Consider this (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-07-31, 05:52:02
What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data.

Best efforts of observation you say? you must have been observing with your eyes closed Oakdale.
Basically you say nothing but since models aren't clear predicting what it's observable, reality is wrong.

You jump from materialism to solipsism with the regularity of a clock's pendulum.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-31, 06:20:07
No, sir! You are being silly!
The average temperature of the earth has been going up -- for two hundred years or more. The measurements of atmospheric CO2 have also been increasing. The GCMs that attempt to take that correlation for a causal connection have failed... (That is, they've made predictions that haven't been verified.) Which is your bugaboo?
Correlation? Or causality?

We're in an interglacial epoch. An epoch that may not last much longer... :) If Pope Francis knows anything, he's been keeping it close to his alb! Or chasuble. :) Does he know the difference?

The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)...
Unless God's been talking to you. (In which case, He needs to start talking to everyone!) It's hard to argue with the voices in your head! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-01, 00:13:11
The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)...

By your one-page piece of shit? no. You can stop link to such bs.
I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.
I have no more patience for feeding your ego. Stay well.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-01, 03:05:45
I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.
But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said... And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong -- because they disagree!
Very little in science can be considered dogma. You seem to reject that little, in order to be one of the "cool kids"... You like pseudo-scientists like Cook and Lewandowsky, because they support your view. And you dislike Lindzen (and perhaps others...whose work you know nothing of) because he doesn't entirely agree with your prejudices!
Why do you bother to post in a thread like this? Its topic doesn't interest you. (At your age, you should know so very much more about it -- if it did.) Are you trying to out-Howie Howie? :)
You've recently succeeded, without the drivel you've written here!

But you're entitled to do without gasoline, cooking and heating gas, air conditioning and all the goods your village doesn't produce for itself... (That would include the Internet!) Bye bye, birdie.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-01, 12:32:02
But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said... And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong -- because they disagree!

Strange commentary you're doing when you seem to master the art of making a hell of a confusion in your head from everything you read.

You mention a steady rising of average temperature for the last 200 years as the evidence of a natural phenomena when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.

From such starting point, that just by itself wold ridicule anyone until the end of times, you accelerate into more and more and more nonsense, always with the help of laughable quoting, aimed to impress... who? your fellow citizens? not even them seems to me too much impressed.

Your attempt to get an intellectual refuge into the Methods of Proof, in order to deny climate alterations, only  shows the weakness of your logic, scientific and philosophical foundations. Every word you say, the worst for your position.

You're very lucky I don't ask you for photons, Oakdale... :)
Are you trying to out-Howie Howie?  :)

No one can out-Howie Howie, he's like Chuck Norris.


I forgot to say that I agree with the necessity of turning actions to fight anthropogenic global disturbance (not just warming and it's consequences but also the infamous daily extermination of life species due to other causes as deflorestation) into a mankind's common cause. That's the important thing, that's what Pope Francis is telling you.
He also speaks about economics, specifically wild capitalism, as a main part and origin of that disturbance, so think about it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-02, 15:55:13
[...]when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.
So, you're ready to ignore the Medieval Warm Period (and the Roman Warm Period) and the research done on them?
Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much upon "what even a child knows"... Or upon scientists that act like children.

(About the rest of what you just said: Don't be too hard on the childish Pope; he had a rough upbringing in a Third World country... :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-08-02, 19:06:50
I reckon we will always have cycles and I am also well aware to emphasise the pint that when younger the would-be brilliant minds were telling us to expect one heck of a freezing cold future and so on. Now this mindset is pontificating on the alternative. Why they especially think on the heat alternative more than the damn freezing one is something else.  We also got a load of mince on the vanishing polar bear population which in practice is cobblers.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-02, 20:21:31
As always, Howie: "Eloquent-sy" and completely unsupported! Carry on...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-03, 16:34:29
(About the rest of what you just said: Don't be too hard on the childish Pope; he had a rough upbringing in a Third World country...  :)  )

As I said the Pope's words are enough for 99,9% of people. Do you consider yourself at the remaining 0,1%? really? :)
So, you're ready to ignore the Medieval Warm Period (and the Roman Warm Period) and the research done on them?
Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much upon "what even a child knows"... Or upon scientists that act like children.

Like "So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All" (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064)?

Do you live inside some bubble?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-03, 18:55:44
Like "So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All" (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064)?
No, I wouldn't say I live in a bubble -- down-playing the Medieval Warm Period became a "cause" unto itself during the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
From the article you linked to:
Quote
One possible criticism of the study is that it's based on just one location. Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason than the rest of the world. For that reason D'Andrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes -- in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic.

Those results haven't been published yet, but, D'Andrea said, "the more work we do, the more this finding seems to hold up."
Have you any links to those further results? :) (The paper was published in 2012!) I'd be wary of a single study using a single proxie at a single location (Kongressvatnet).... That being said, I've no criticism of the paper itself (which I've probably not read...); but the criticism mentioned as "possible" in the article is of the speculative use of the sparsest of evidence to infer a global temperature! Surely, that's reasonable? :)

The article continues:
Quote
The research is important, not just because it reinforces the conclusion that humans are now putting their own imprint on the climate, but also, D'Andrea said, because it can help scientists predict where the climate is going from here.

"If we can understand how the climate system reacted to natural forces in the past," he said, "we'll have a better understanding of how it will respond to the changes we're imposing on it."
This sounds very optimistic and very pessimistic, at the same time:
Plainly put, we don't have a very good understanding either of the climate "system" itself or of the various natural forces acting upon it... Such of course would be nice to have! :)
As I said the Pope's words are enough for 99,9% of people. Do you consider yourself at the remaining 0,1%? really?
Perhaps you mean 99.9% of people in you village? :) Or just Portugal? :) Really: What credibility does Pope Francis have on the subject of AGW?
(You surely know enough about Catholic dogma to reject his position as leader of the faith, as any authority on this subject?!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-03, 20:47:24
I've tried all the possibilities that you're not an idiot, Oakdale, but with no success.
You really are.
I'll move to the next poster, if any.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-04, 02:23:34
I've tried all the possibilities that you're not an idiot, Oakdale, but with no success.
If you yourself are an idiot (on this topic), you're chances of finding out anything to confirm you preconceived notions seem pretty slim... Unless you reject rationalism entirely. Which you seem quite inclined to do!
The one possibility you didn't consider (because you don't have the expertise) is that my "take" on the science is valid.
As the article said: "Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason [other] than the rest of the world. For that reason D'Andrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes -- in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic."
So: What have they found? (Enough, apparently, to be very quiet about... :) Or you'll provide links? Bosh! You don't know and you don't care.)
Of course, when the UN or some subset of some of the worst nations extant decides to "go to war" over climate change, we'll have a much better understanding of what the motives are...
Will Portugal (or the Vatican) "protect" their interests?
How? :)

What further studies confirm D'Andrea's speculations? (We can go back to the book of Genesis, if you want: But that isn't going to further a scientific discussion!) How does an idiot determine that others are idiots? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-04, 10:46:05
The one possibility you didn't consider (because you don't have the expertise) is that my "take" on the science is valid.

I'm in good company...
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences 
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia 
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters  
Society of Biology (UK)  
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America 
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-04, 11:19:09
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeK5aBhT.gif&hash=2fed21d55db13d6d7a6172da3ca02445" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/eK5aBhT.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-08-04, 13:23:57
The "fact" so-called that I am unsupported means sod all Oakdale pontificator. Years ago as I pointed out this group mind lot were warning of a very dangerous freeze-up which would be devastating so do not take advantage of others who did not know these earlier warnings. So they go from one extreme to the other and that is okay. Plus the added nonsense of the polar bears vanishing when they are not. You don't get out often enough and pick the books......
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-04, 17:08:37
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action
My! But that's an impressive list... So, we're agreed that most bureaucracies and most bureaucrats support an AGW-averse agenda? Good.
We disagree, however, that the science does... :) Likewise, that most scientists do.

For fairly good reasons, most people are amenable to an Appeal to Authority on topics like AGW. For fairly good reasons, I am not. (One of my reasons for accepting an authority is straightforward: The relevant expertise is evident and no supplanting agenda has been demonstrated... These may appear to be too esoteric criteria to you.)

BTW: What happened to the plan for exploring those other Arctic lakes for confirming the Kongressvatnet reconstruction of its paleoclimate by proxie? (I've done some searching, and I haven't found out -- yet...)

@Howie: I well-remember the '70s. But I'm not stuck in them, like some I could mention... (Paul Ehrlich, most prominently.) If you're familiar with how a prediction of the immanent melting of the Himalayan glaciers found its way into an IPCC Assessment Report, you know why the "story" of the Polar Bears was so appealing: The largest and most influential environmentalist groups are largely wedded to an apocalyptic/utopian dichotomy.
So, rather than Chicken Little running about saying "The sky is falling!" there are chickens all over the place doing so! Of course, they're still just chickens running about squawking... :) 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-05, 11:37:33
We disagree, however, that the science does...  :)  Likewise, that most scientists do.

Quote

Abstract

Nearly all climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is occurring, yet half of Americans do not know or do not believe that a scientific consensus has been reached. That such a large proportion of Americans do not understand that there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus about the basic facts of climate change matters, a lot. This essay briefly explains why, and what climate science societies and individual climate scientists can do to set the record straight.When asked to estimate the proportion of climate scientists who are convinced that human-caused climate change is happening (in quintiles), only 22% of American adults correctly selected 81%-100% (Leiserowitz et al., 2014).
[...]
This misperception among Americans is not only pervasive but also highly consequential (Ding et al., 2011; McCright et al., 2013). Those who do not understand the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change are, in turn, less likely to believe that climate change is happening, human-caused, will have serious consequences, and is solvable (i.e., can be mitigated through concerted action). In addition, not understanding this scientific consensus undermines Americans' support for a broad societal response to the threat. As a result, knowledge of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change can be considered a "gateway" cognition; as members of the general public come to understand the consensus, they more likely come to the conclusion that human-caused climate change is happening and harmful.

The pervasiveness of this misperception is not an accident. Rather, it is the result of a disinformation campaign by individuals and organizations in the United States--and increasingly in other nations around the world (Norgaard, 2006; Dunlap and McCright, 2011)--who oppose government action to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The claim that climate scientists are still arguing over the reality of human-caused climate change was designed to resonate with the sensibilities of political conservatives who are inherently suspicious of government intervention in markets and societies. This targeted disinformation campaign has been highly effective in the United States: far more political conservatives (49%) than liberals (18%) currently believe that there is "a lot of disagreement among the experts about global warming" (Leiserowitz et al., 2013). While originally launched in the United States, this disinformation campaign is now being pursued in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand as well (Dunlap and McCright, 2011).

This disinformation campaign has impeded the implementation of strategies to reduce the risks of climate change (McCright and Dunlap, 2003; Pooley, 2010). Moreover, as an intentional effort to obscure and dispute the conclusions of climate science, the campaign should be seen as an attack on climate science itself.
[...]


If not enough ashamed you can read the rest here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full) Oakdale.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-05, 11:47:58
Belfrager--- I really can't jump onto your bandwagon.

"Everybody says it's so"---- uh huh. Actually, that 97% of scientists has a way of evaporating when you start to really get into it.

The "Catastrophe of the Week" stories don't help much either. You are aware, are you not, that if computer models had been accurate people in New York City shoulda been swimming by now. Hasn't happened yet. There should be no ice in the Arctic by now--- seems that didn't exactly hold together either. Last year, the "Ship of Fools" went down to Antarctica to measure the melting of ice down there--- and promptly got stuck in an ice-field and had to be rescued. A couple of the rescue ships got stuck as well. They had to use a helicopter to effect the rescue because the ice was just too thick even for the Russian icebreaker to get through.

I've already mentioned here that the last couple of winters have seen very high ice coverage on the Great Lakes, more than has been usual in years past.

"But the Pope says"----- The Pope can say whatever he likes. When what he says about climate catastrophe doesn't happen--- then what do you do?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-05, 12:14:57
I've already mentioned here that the last couple of winters have seen very high ice coverage on the Great Lakes, more than has been usual in years past.

Can God give me patience...

Look, global warning is not that the entire world is going to reach such temperatures that you can cook without an owe everywhere, north pole included. Global warming is all about climate pattern disruption caused just by a couple degrees raise. It has catastrophic consequences at some parts of the globe like all coastal areas as well an immense growth of desert areas. Life species eco system will have dramatic changes and unpredictable species extinction.

Even located deep inside a continent with your lakes, you must have heard about the Gulf Stream.it happens because the Humbolt stream. One it's surface hot water, the other cold deep water that goes anti clock around Europe and America. Massive ice melting at the north pole waters and that gigantic warming/cooling earth refrigeration system will disrupt by the salinity water alteration. No one can predict exactly when and with what consequences, when you have the proof that it already happened I assure you you can't correct it anymore.

Keep playing the American egotism and thoughtlessness. Remember that you have no excuses at all.
"But the Pope says"----- The Pope can say whatever he likes. When what he says about climate catastrophe doesn't happen--- then what do you do?

I'll say Our Lady made a miracle that saved us all. Even you. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-05, 16:20:23
You are aware, are you not, that if computer models had been accurate people in New York City shoulda been swimming by now. Hasn't happened yet. There should be no ice in the Arctic by now--- seems that didn't exactly hold together either.

Setting aside the fact that affluent regions like New NetherlandYork or the Netherlands won't be swimming anytime soon regardless how many millimeters the sea level may rise within the next decades -- that dubious honor would fall to Bangladesh -- which computer models would those be? Certainly not the ones I remember from the mid-'90s.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-05, 19:23:13
If not enough ashamed you can read the rest here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full) Oakdale.  (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.260;msg=44059)
I've read much of the "original" work cited in this essay... I've tried to discuss -specifically- the works of Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky here; but no one was interested.
It seems that bogus (poorly designed, poorly implemented, statistically inept...) sociological studies are still in vogue. You can follow that fad, if you want. But -except as a curiosity, and a trend showing how little the most vocal climatologists care for their science- I'm not that interested.
There is still actual science being done in the field of climatology!
Polemics won't convince me to reject the science, or to accept what the science doesn't support.

And you can guess what you can do with the meme that a vast conspiracy exists to discredit the honest labors of the world's climatologists!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note well, Belfrager: All three authors of the essay you cite work at institutions formed to advocate the theory of CAGW. Their focus is on "communication" not climatology... Put less genteelly, they're concerned with effective propaganda.
No wonder they keep repeating easily discredited conspiracy theories!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-05, 21:00:30
It seems that bogus (poorly designed, poorly implemented, statistically inept...) sociological studies are still in vogue. You can follow that fad, if you want. But -except as a curiosity, and a trend showing how little the most vocal climatologists care for their science- I'm not that interested.
There is still actual science being done in the field of climatology!

I know that your party has a donkey for symbol  - or is the other one? You don't need to bray at every single post you post.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-05, 21:14:00
Bel--- you need to prove that there actually is a catastrophe waiting around every corner.

The reason I don't sign on to the hoopla is precisely because CAGW has been sold with a "catastrophe of the month" propaganda. That, and it just doesn't jibe with what I actually experience.

There's an astounding element of pride in the thing too. I don't doubt for a minute that climate change happens. I DO doubt that humans can influence it much for good or for evil. We're just not that powerful.

Right now, personally, I think another little ice age is more likely. The reason for this is that the sun seems to be going into a solar minimum, and for an unknown period it won't produce as much energy as we have been used to. This will take a bit of time to be noticed, and maybe it won't be as sharp as last time. I don't look for ice sheets in Chicago in July, but stunted growing seasons are not outside the realm of possibilities. Note that I didn't say that the actions of men have anything to do with this--- I don't possess near the level of pride it would take to think that man can influence the sun. Maybe you do. In that case--- have fun.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-05, 21:41:11
Unlike most Europeans, I had the idea that Americans, as any other species, could be educated if proper explanation, aimed to their intelligence and educational levels, was gave to them.
I give up, what a silly idea of mine.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-05, 23:10:43

Unlike most Europeans, I had the idea that Americans, as any other species, could be educated if proper explanation, aimed to their intelligence and educational levels, was gave to them.
I give up, what a silly idea of mine.


If, by "educated" you mean get us to march in lockstep behind your favorite Pied Piper,-- you're probably right. We have this rather silly idea of actually thinking for ourselves. What a concept.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-06, 00:04:45
I know that your party has a donkey for symbol  - or is the other one? You don't need to bray at every single post you post.
You mean one is not supposed to read the actual papers? Just the editorials? :) If you knew how shoddy a lot of this sociology of science and "communication" is, you'd stand a better chance of understanding the actual science of climatology... As it is, you'll hold to the old group-think -- reality be damned!
(It's a wonder Europeans ever stopped burning witches...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-09, 06:14:12
Note: Others have not stopped posting because they realize their arguments are futile! They've stopped because they have no arguments, other than brute force: Politics.
So, I won't accept the canard that mentioning politics disqualifies me from discussing the science...
So far, the "science" mentioned by others consists of essays and editorials (...oh, and what an Estonian educated by the Russians remembers from his High School classes), and of course the new Pope's egregious usurpation...
The UN is a quintessential political body. Look at the various nations involved and ask yourself: Would you trust their judgement, if your life were at stake?
It's a simple question.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-09, 07:55:54

The UN is a quintessential political body. Look at the various nations involved and ask yourself: Would you trust their judgement, if your life were at stake?
It's a simple question.

And in your logic, life is at stake this way: If the industries are forced to consider ecology, we are all gonna die!!!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-09, 08:33:17
And in your logic, life is at stake this way: If the industries are forced to consider ecology, we are all gonna die!!!
Many lives are at stake, if energy production is constrained to mediocre and intermittent sources... (For you and me, not so much!) You've already decided who should die, for your religious scruples; but you've not shown the science that supports such a radical view. (You think you've shown that a great many "scientists" agree with you -- although you have yet to say what you yourself think, other than what you learned in elementary school! If those scientists are wrong, or you've misunderstood them, what? Don't tell me how many people -with whatever credentials they might have- agree with you! Tell me why you're right.)

If "ecology" was a science -- No. Never mind. Ohm! That's all you have, and I beat you to saying it!
Seriously, ersi, do you really believe that the Earth's climate has -as a result of industrialization- broached a catastrophic "tipping point"? If so, give me facts, theories.
Support them with published papers (...not editorials!). Surely, the science is there... Or not.

Your move. (I am competent to deal with most of such... Beware.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-09, 11:20:38
and of course the new Pope's egregious usurpation...

You have a list to read I gave you. Waiting for you reading it and you're going to read it line by line.
Don't worry, take your time, the amount of scientific organizations that ridicules your ideas is endless. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-09, 17:48:43
Befrager is heavily into bandwagon thinking. "Everybody's doing it."

So-- in light of that, repeat after me: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Repeat that, oh, about 100 times or so. Or at least until you believe that it's so.

See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/a-simple-tale-about-switching-to-renewable-power-requirements-consequences/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/a-simple-tale-about-switching-to-renewable-power-requirements-consequences/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-09, 20:41:02
Befrager is heavily into bandwagon thinking.

"Befrager" is heavily into what Belfrager wants to be heavily at.
And you, you are heavily into ignorance and ridiculous. Another one that (I hope) will never cross the Atlantic, as none of the others like you have ever did.

Why Americans at this forum are the only ones that never ever leaved that piece of sh*t it's a mystery. There's Americans all over he place but none of these.
It explains everything, we have to deal with the most deep American soul... not a bit of evolution, nothing... basically Sioux crossed with Dutch and English servants and waiters - just emptiness, total  emptiness.

Sorry, I forgot that Smileyfaze is a world travelled man. This post is not for him. He still represents Americans, either for the the best and the least best.
And the other one, Coronel.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-09, 21:52:16
I could sincerely hope that you, Bel-- and RJHowie-- stay in your respective homelands. Such bigotry against anybody not like yourselves---- even the KKK hardly matches it, and they're known for it.

Aside from that, though--- I have some sources that tell me that the science on CAGW is hardly a "settled science".

Really, when you stop to think of it, it might be an impossibility to have "settled science" on the Earth's climate. We've only started studying it in the past handful of decades, and there's much that honest scientists would tell you is still not understood or at best poorly understood. If this were not so, computer models that forecast what will happen to earth's climate would have a much better record than they do. As it is, they can't even reliably forecast rain over the next 24 hours. (I have empirical evidence for this: Both Accuweather and the Weather Channel were forecasting downpours here over the last couple of days. We got------- a few drops. If you weren't standing outside and felt it, you wouldn't know.)

So--- if they can't reliably forecast rain over a 24 hour period, why should I believe they can forecast terrible calamity over a 30 year period? Their record to date looks a little shaky.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-09, 22:59:58
Both Accuweather and the Weather Channel were forecasting downpours here over the last couple of days. We got------- a few drops. If you weren't standing outside and felt it, you wouldn't know.)

So--- if they can't reliably forecast rain over a 24 hour period, why should I believe they can forecast terrible calamity over a 30 year period? Their record to date looks a little shaky.

Ok. It only reinforces what I said.
Aside from that, though--- I have some sources that tell me that the science on CAGW is hardly a "settled science".

Yeah, I know... like Oakdale, you two are no different, just expresses it in different styles .The I wanna be an erudite and the I'm proud to be a peasant. Two faces of the same coin. The dollar.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-09, 23:32:42
You're gonna have to do better than that, Bel. Actually, you've been producing a pretty good argument against your side of the story. What have you got? "Hate America Bigotry". Yep, that makes a strong argument. Well, not exactly. Because while you're spending your time calling the American posters here ignorant buffoons, you give us all the material we need to dismiss you out of hand. There's no reason to listen to someone whose hatred--- yes, hatred-- of us overshadows everything he writes.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-10, 00:25:00
Because while you're spending your time calling the American posters here ignorant buffoons, you give us all the material we need to dismiss you out of hand. There's no reason to listen to someone whose hatred--- yes, hatred-- of us overshadows everything he writes.

Now, you just imagine that I'm right. Imagine, just imagine it, it will not hurt you.
See the result? and if that's the reality? :)

My words helps you.

But there's a vestige,a remnant of truth on what you say. Anti Americanism is a trend all over the place that I'm starting to get tired.
Now on I'll be anti Vanuatu. No one is against them.
Unfortunately, Vanuatu posters are hard to find. Like the Portuguese. :)
You're luckier than me...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-10, 00:52:29
I imagine that you're a "Hate America Bigot". You've been producing an abundance of evidence that this is so. After that, anything else you've got to say gets dismissed out of hand.

While I'm on this: Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing. Well, at least where I notice it. I tell you here and now that you waste perfectly good arguments when you open with hatred of the nationality of other posters here. All you do is to show yourself to be a xenophobic bigot, and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?

I would like to think that, if I ever did visit your countries (admittedly the chance of this happening is remote, I'm just not wealthy enough to be a globe-trotter) I might expect a decent welcome. Instead, I get the feeling here that if I did visit the first response-- possibly even before I got off the plane--- would be that I should take my ignorant American #%% back home where it belongs. Soooo--- reckon I won't be visiting even if I could afford it. No reason to visit a place where you're not welcome, eh?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-10, 02:59:08
[...] and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?
Because 2+2=2*2, which is not 5! That's the problem I have: No argument I've seen has convinced me that 2+2=5. (Cummings' slim volume didn't come close...!) Nor that 2*2=5. If someone is -for whatever reasons- committed to 5 being the answer, I can only laugh at them -- and perhaps pity them.
In this topic, I expect either informed scientific argument or sensible political/economical argument. I get neither.
Either my "opponents" are not being honest or they have not the capacity to understand the topic.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-10, 12:28:35
Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing.

Three? three is already a conspiracy... :)

Stop complaining mjm, do you want a thread about AGW without mentioning the role your country, your industry, your government and your mentality have on it? not possible no matter how much you accuse us of xenophobic behaviour.
and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?

Why should I be worried with that? I find my humble contributions very good. Specially, they are short, that's nice. :)

If it pleases you, I don't think that any of the Three has any special aversion to your Country. Well, maybe one but one out of three ain't bad. It's a fact of life these days that your country and your governments have an huge responsibility on AGW. Course you try to simply deny AGW as a way of sorting out of the problem. It will not work, you can't just run away.

I don't know the exact numbers but maybe more than fifty percent of Americans, one hundred fifty millions of people, can tell you exactly what I say. Are you also go to answer them as you do with me? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-08-10, 15:09:18

I imagine that you're a "Hate America Bigot".

While I'm on this: Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing. Well, at least where I notice it.


3 posters out of how many posting people from Europe? It might give an interesting percentage.
And since you are at it - what else have those 3 posters in common except "Hate America Bigot"?
Have they the same political views? Are they sharing the same cultural heritage or language at least?

A more in depth analysis of your findings might be interesting - not only for the 3. :)


I would like to think that, if I ever did visit your countries (admittedly the chance of this happening is remote, I'm just not wealthy enough to be a globe-trotter) I might expect a decent welcome.


A decent welcome you say? How decent would you expect it to be? :)
An even more decent welcome than many Europeans encounter on US airports at arrival?
Some of them are denied the entry after a long Stasi like interrogation at the airport, without any explanation.
Last example, a 19 years old high-school graduate. She just wanted to visit some friends in Cleveland.
She is cured for now. Just wonder if she will become another "Hate America Bigot"? I hope not but it was a tough experience for a 19 years old teen who had to do some savings for her US journey. 1000€ = 4 hours lasting US airport visit.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-10, 18:35:52
She is cured for now. Just wonder if she will become another "Hate America Bigot"? I hope not but it was a tough experience for a 19 years old teen who had to do some savings for her US journey. 1000€ = 4 hours lasting US airport visit.

America is actually way down on my list of locations to spend my touristy money because American customs is just about the worst way to come out of an 8-hour flight. But I do wonder what you mean by Stasi-like interrogation. :P I had to go for further questioning one time at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and it was just a counter where you had to go to answer yet more annoying questions. Perhaps the Stasi would ask similar questions, considering the proper answer to most of them would be "none of your freaking business" under different circumstances, but I think their technique might've been a tad worse.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-08-10, 20:35:31
What do the two of you think is going on? Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

I have no idea how bad it is and how many people coming in are affected. Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-08-10, 21:04:59

But I do wonder what you mean by Stasi-like interrogation. :P


Hours of interrogation without an interpreter and without letting you make even a phone call (your cell phone gets confiscated, you get it back together with your baggage short before taking your flight home).
OK, the StaSi comparison was a bit of a stretch. They don't beat you during interrogation, neither do you get waterboarded.
So far it's only a 'friendly' conversation which can take only hours.


Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.


How can it be Eurohate? Aren't we among your closest allies?

As I mentioned above - some but not all.
There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick. I don't think that a 19 years old girl (even one coming from Germany) can pose a serious threat to the USA.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-08-10, 21:34:57
How can it be Eurohate? Aren't we among your closest allies?

As I mentioned above - some but not all.
There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick. I don't think that a 19 years old girl (even one coming from Germany) can pose a serious threat to the USA.

Such notions are silly. It meant something during WWII and postwar fear of Russia, I suppose, but not today. It's a game politicians play. Today there's a touch of that with regard to China and the Spratlys.

On the girl, I have no idea what was going on. I'm sure that you don't either, but I could be wrong. I do that a lot.

It's a shame that so much of what goes on here is so negative. Sadly, I'm a guilty party.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-11, 11:20:16
There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick.

Less luck you say? By Christ, the USA invented tourist harassment.

I don't go there because international seven hours flights should be forbidden such is the impact in climate changing. When Zeppelins will be back again, maybe I'll go. I have diplomatic immunity, I'm a member of an International Sanctuary and have nothing to answer to customs, I speak no English.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-08-11, 16:58:25
I have to agree with you on US Customs Frenzie.

On my first visit over there the man was not only bad mannered but ignorant, glaring and not a very welcoming person at all. Two years later when I had a second trip i could not believe it as I got the same uniformed oaf as previously. Their attitudes to visitors is far from normal or decent and would put people off. In fact the entry to other countries was far more acceptable but being a strong person I made a point of not letting the Gestapo trainees at New York put me off.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-08-11, 18:02:40
the USA invented tourist harassment

I have no idea who invented tourism harassment or tourism for that matter.

Obviously, it can't be everybody

I've stumbled by coincidence over some numbers for 2013. Over 700 Germans (a minority of course) have been denied entrance on US airports despite of a valid visa. It would be interesting to know about more actual numbers.

At least mjmsprt40 wouldn't need to worry  for such an experience on German airports.
Whereas I doubt that customs officials will roll out the red carpet for him, at least he can be assured that he will be treated with respect.
No dumb questions, no interrogations lasting for ours. He wouldn't even have to hand out his new cell-phone camera (which does motion) for being sifted through :)
As a bonus, he could whenever prolong his visa and even work here for as long as he wants.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-08-11, 19:42:15
As a bonus, he could whenever prolong his visa and even work here for as long as he wants.

Deutschland needs hotel room cleaners?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-11, 21:21:52
I've stumbled by coincidence over some numbers for 2013. Over 700 Germans (a minority of course) have been denied entrance on US airports despite of a valid visa. It would be interesting to know about more actual numbers.

700 German terrorists of course.
You do well Americans, don't let them enter. Probably the Baader-Meinhof kind, they reproduce like rabbits.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-11, 23:54:28
The U.S oh, heck, anything to do with TSA is something of a crying shame.

It's possible to be on a no-fly list just because your name is similar to somebody already on it--- and neither you or the other person being guilty of anything. Once on a list, it's near impossible to get off of it, or even to find out why you're on the list in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans who were denied entry were denied on some spurious reason which, if an intelligent person actually looked at it, wouldn't stand up and the person would be granted entry-- and maybe an apology to boot.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-12, 07:16:08
What do the two of you think is going on? Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

If anything I'd think it's more ignorance or a type of anti-discrimination. Just like how being together with my American spouse in Europe is not a simple formality because in essence I think "we" want to keep out Moroccan immigrants. But obviously you couldn't just put immigration restrictions on Morocco -- no, that'd be bad and discriminatory. It needs to be the whole world to be fair! (Note that the number of Moroccan immigrants has always paled compared to, say, German immigrants like my grandmother...)

I have no idea how bad it is and how many people coming in are affected. Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.

This one time when I came through O'Hare the customs guy was shocked when I told him I came from a flight that landed nearly 2 hours ago. Me, I was shocked this one time when it took only about 45 minutes to get through. As an American you may not notice. They have separate waiting lines for Americans.

Hours of interrogation without an interpreter and without letting you make even a phone call (your cell phone gets confiscated, you get it back together with your baggage short before taking your flight home).

Do you have a link to a news story? I found this (http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/2414096/2015/08/06/19-jarige-vrouw-mag-VS-niet-binnen-omwille-van-onschuldige-Facebookchats.dhtml), but it's HLN... but yes, those weirdos were already suspicious when I wanted to stay for three weeks. Ooh, how suspicious, I'll be spending more money in your economy than if I stayed the median amount of time. Couldn't have that, could we... :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-08-12, 09:43:40
Try this link (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=us+einreise+verweigert&num=100&safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=720&as_qdr=all&gbv=1&sei=6xLLVZCjPIT5UNjqjfgO) for a Google search.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-12, 09:58:10
Try this link (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=us+einreise+verweigert&num=100&safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=720&as_qdr=all&gbv=1&sei=6xLLVZCjPIT5UNjqjfgO) for a Google search.

I meant specifically the one you were talking about because that has the interrogation aspect.

Quote from: http://www.boeckler.de/44711_44725.htm
Leider ändert das nichts daran, dass die US-Behörden uns verdächtig finden - denn heute gilt zunächst einmal jeder als verdächtig, der in die USA einreisen will, und es ist Aufgabe umfangreicher Sicherheitschecks, diesen millionenfachen Generalverdacht zu widerlegen.

Heh, that does sound accurate. :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: krake on 2015-08-12, 10:29:57

I meant specifically the one you were talking about because that has the interrogation aspect.

You can find it among the search results resulting from the link I gave.

For instance:
- USA verweigern 19-Jähriger Einreise wegen ... - Tagesspiegel (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/deutsche-bei-passkontrolle-abgewiesen-usa-verweigern-19-jaehriger-einreise-wegen-facebook-chat/12146874.html)
- Im Land der begrenzten Freundlichkeit (http://www.fr-online.de/politik/usa--im-land-der-begrenzten-freundlichkeit,1472596,31367494.html)
- Ich kam mir vor wie eine Schwerverbrecherin (http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/leben/usa-einreise-abgelehnt-20-jaehrige-wegen-facebook-chat-abgewiesen-a-1046792.html)

BTW: Since even almost every US citizen is perceived as a potential criminal,  why should people from abroad make any difference?
So far there is nothing our US posters should be ashamed or feel guilty for.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-12, 11:50:47
Thanks, the Frankfurter Rundschau article is the kind of thing I was looking for.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: jax on 2015-08-13, 13:54:41
It is unfortunate that the first contact with another country will be immigration officers. They can be a pain most places, though for European citizen the US may be the worst. Just harassing enough that when you have choice where to go, you might go somewhere else instead.

I might actually go to the US this year, if New York counts. That might be just in time for Arlanda US pre-clearance (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/us-immigration-pre-clearance-controversial-in-more-ways-than-one-239504), so I can enjoy the pleasures of being harassed on my home turf instead.

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change, but it is pretty clear we've stopped discussing this years ago. The travails of travel may be a tolerable substitute.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-13, 14:22:13
Jax-- it works for me. I have to admit that TSA doesn't exactly shine when you come here from somewhere else-- I haven't experienced it much personally because I NEVER fly, but you can't help hearing from others. Especially when I meet a courier at Terminal 5 at O'Hare (Terminal 5 is the International terminal) and I sometimes have to wait HOURS for the courier to clear customs. It varies--- I've met the courier within 15 minutes of the plane's arrival, one time I was there several hours waiting. What does the courier bring? A couple of boxes going to the John Deere plant in Iowa. I'm sure lawn-tractor parts are a high-security issue, eh?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-08-13, 15:11:12
Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

You're good at finding things in DND. Can you find one topic where the focus is maintained? All topics drift.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-13, 17:14:58

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

You're good at finding things in DND. Can you find one topic where the focus is maintained? All topics drift.


It would help if folk actually pay attention when they quote other people. Example: In the quote above, Jimbro attributes something to me that I didn't say. Jax said it.....
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-08-13, 18:31:46
You're right again. My bad.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-08-14, 00:57:51
I think it is naughty to pick on mjsmsprt40. After all he lives in Illinois you know.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-14, 03:16:39
Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change, but it is pretty clear we've stopped discussing this years ago.
Yes. Except for those who are interested in the science or the politics...
Are you yourself interested in why few are interested in either?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-14, 04:21:00
Quote from: Wikipedia
Ecological Debt Day, also known as Earth Overshoot Day, is the (claimed) approximate calendar date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth's capacity to regenerate those resources that year.

(World Biocapacity/World Ecological Footpring)x365=Ecological Debt Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day)

This year it was yesterday, say sources like WWF. But they are a loony cult like Scientology, those greenie bastards...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-14, 15:06:06
This year it was yesterday, say sources like WWF. But they are a loony cult like Scientology, those greenie bastards...

New political parties, that defends the principles of New Economics, needs to appear. A new economy, a new environment, a new society.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-14, 19:45:36
New political parties, that defends the principles of New Economics, needs to appear. A new economy, a new environment, a new society.
Seems to be a toss-up, for the "environmentalists": Brave New World or 1984...

That's what happens when a majority of people get their "science" from literary sources.

Yes, ersi, the World Wildlife Fund is an NGO dedicated to "loony" pseudo-science...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing real science is hard! And it is quite instructive to see which groups opt for the easier tasks of opinion polling and fanciful computer modelling. (Things haven't changed much since the Club of Rome's early efforts.) And what type of mind prefers "scenarios" to predictions... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-14, 22:37:29
That's what happens when a majority of people get their "science" from literary sources.

Read the list I gave you and shut up.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-15, 03:09:03
I read the list -- it might have been culled from the phone book! You're a boob, Belfrager, if you are so easily gulled... And a nincompoop if you thought I'd be.
I can (and do) read technical papers. While I will occasionally read editorials, essays and even screeds, I don't give them much credence. Have you any sources beyond what you've indicated?

(Forgive my diction: I'm re-reading Rex Stout's oeuvre! Nero Wolfe is one of my favorite fictional characters; and his manner and tone are infectious. :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-15, 05:15:46

Doing real science is hard!

This explains why you shy away from it.


And it is quite instructive to see which groups opt for the easier tasks of opinion polling and fanciful computer modelling.

And also instructive to see what effect agendas can have. When you think industries are good - because they say so and they cannot lie -, you easily assert that there's no pollution. Instructive.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-15, 07:35:21
When you think industries are good - because they say so and they cannot lie -, you easily assert that there's no pollution.
Surely, even a bright middle-school pupil knows what a straw man is? :)
Your problem is not pollution of the environment... It's pollution of the mind: Fanaticism or fatuousness! I have no cure for either, ersi.
But you have an ally in Belfrager -- perhaps you could ask those who make and deploy devices that break the laws of physics to help your cause? Or ask Bel to ask them for you? :)

If you actually maintain that man's pollution is about to (or even can) catastrophically disrupt the earth's climate "system" -- please provide evidence!
Not hints, hand-wringing and horrific scenarios. Evidence. (The IPCC has failed to do so, in 25 years... You may disagree; but I read their assessments a little more closely than you do, I think.) Also, if you would (though I doubt you will... :) ), say what -then- should be done, by whom, and to what purpose.
Easy-peasy, eh? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-15, 08:53:04

Surely, even a bright middle-school pupil knows what a straw man is? :)

Yes. And a bright pupil notices when someone else throws the term around without any clue what it is. Seriously, you stand quotable on everything I have said.


Your problem is not pollution of the environment... It's pollution of the mind: Fanaticism or fatuousness!

..says the guy who only dabbles in politics, illogic, pseudoscience.


If you actually maintain that man's pollution is about to (or even can) catastrophically disrupt the earth's climate "system" -- please provide evidence!

It's done pages ago. It's your turn for several weeks already.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-15, 10:37:54
Can you even cite a derivation of the IPCC's recent value for the transient climate sensitivity...? Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do. Not for me. (If they will for you, that's your problem.) Or would you recognize recent works yielding a value slightly more than half...? Of course, that would remove the "catastrophic" from CAGW; but you can't have everything, if you want verifiable science!
Is that what you want? Verifiable science? :)

Please explain your position via a one-word answer. Then back it up, either by agreeing to discuss recent (or even ancient!) published work or by bloviating about ideologies and conspiracies. (Ask Belfrager for help on the latter... :) You can, I'm sure, handle the former yourself.) If all you can muster are the "works" of Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky and their like, admit it!
What have you got to lose? (I mean, besides your credibility... They can't take your high school diploma away, can they?! :) ) Seriously: If climatology doesn't interest you, just say so!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-15, 10:55:28

Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do. Not for me.

But they do - for you. In economics you are just fine with them. I never was in any science.

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect. For you it's predictions of warming. Different topics.


Please explain your position via a one-word answer.

Done.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-15, 13:37:55
We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect. For you it's predictions of warming. Different topics.

And while people discusses climatology's core model... National Geographic remade their Arctic Atlas (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/).
Because nothing it's happening, of course...
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhAnbsw5.gif&hash=79e70a1efe5189e3f77db5f03dc3765a" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/hAnbsw5.gif)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-16, 06:21:18
In economics you are just fine with them.
That's a presumption of yours... :) (You do that quite a lot!)
I never was in any science.
That has often seemed obvious...
We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.
Have you a reason for such a pronouncement?
But if such a model fails even the simplest of tests -verification- than why would you cling to it so desperately?
(Or do you have a super-secret pseudo-mathematical formula for waving away contrary evidence?)
For you it's predictions of warming.
As usual, with your either-or logic (Syllogistic and the oh-so venerable Venn diagrams...), you've reached a conclusion that you can't verify:
The models (based upon a simplistic understanding of the greenhouse effect) have predicted warming that has not occurred; and, since the models start from a misconception of that "effect", they hinder the science of climatology: They have predicated an outcome that both data and theory mostly don't support...
I take you at your word that you have no science in mind... Except the greenhouse effect itself, as understood by high schoolers! Or perhaps I took you wrong: Do you think it imperative that "the world" drastically reduces its dependence on fossil fuels, because of CO2 "pollution"?
Or perhaps you simply believe some trace gasses in our atmosphere are "magical"... :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Belfrager: You did read the (skimpy) article, didn't you? :)
Quote
"Ultimately," noted [Walt] Meier [,a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Cryospheric Sciences Lab], "it is an editorial decision as to what to show and how."

Confirms [Rosemary] Wardley [National Geographic's senior GIS cartographer]: "We do not show the minimum extent simply because there is only so much information we can put on the map before it becomes confusing to the user."
(your source, Bel...)
Perhaps confusing the "user" was the point? :)

At any rate (so far demonstrable -- pun intended!), 2012 was the end! Why bother with more data?
Oh, wait: That was the Mayan apocalypse... It's difficult to keep some of these doomsday scenarios separate!

But as they say: "Any storm out of port..." (That's not right, is it? :) ) But a "sailor" must have his sea stories to tell! Else how's 'e gonna cadge drinks?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-16, 06:48:39

In economics you are just fine with them.
That's a presumption of yours... :) (You do that quite a lot!)

It's been clear, as soon as you chimed in in this thread, that you have no idea what presumption is. You are blind to your own presumptions while you think everybody else has them.


We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.
If such a model fails even the simplest of tests -verification- than why would you cling to it so desperately?

You have no idea what verification is either. Have you verified that ecological concerns are unfounded? Of course you haven't. You only have the ideological presumption that people are under an ideological mass psychosis.


The models (based upon a simplistic understanding of the greenhouse effect) have predicted warming that has not occurred; ...

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-16, 07:43:59
And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.
Well... The "In" crowd changed that to "Catastrophic Climate Change" a while back -- and has vacillated since. (It seems that "climate change" isn't scary enough!) They've repeatedly tried to tout "severe" weather -- which fails to match observations; sea-level rise, which has remained at a steady rate for centuries; glacier melts, which don't; impending animal extinctions, which refuse to happen; Arctic and Antarctic ice cover and extant, which confound the modellers!
If you must cling to the greenhouse effect as the major driver of climactic change, at least admit that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor!
And we understand very little about it, as yet.
But you seem not to care how little we know: You just want -- what? (You never do seem to say...)

Since you admit that the science either doesn't interest you or is beyond your ken, would you kindly state any point toward which your posts here lead?
(The obvious one can be elided... We all know! :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-16, 08:13:44

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.
Well... The "In" crowd changed that to "Catastrophic Climate Change" a while back -- and has vacillated since.

No. It was changed to "global warming" in early 90's, maybe late 80's at the earliest. This change was (1) scientifically unjustified and (2) specific to Anglo-Americans. For the rest of the world it always was and remained the greenhouse effect. The rest of the world never vascillated in basic terminology. I have said this several times over, but you keep forgetting.

Edit: This does not mean there's no warming. There is. But the more important effect is turbulence. It's not linear warming. This has been the actual model for 200 years.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-16, 08:21:30
For the rest of the world it always was and remained the greenhouse effect. I have said this several times over, but you keep forgetting.
That might be largesse on my part: This "greenhouse effect" you think so important has been grossly misrepresented! And you seem quite fine with such.

But --in case I'm wrong and you know better-- give me a paper or textbook that explains this effect, as a primary element of the earth's climate "system"... (Ask anyone, including Google! I only want some idea of what the heck you think you mean!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: This does not mean there's no warming. There is. But the more important effect is turbulence. It's not linear warming. This has been the actual model for 200 years.
Holy shit! You're back to your quasi-Buddhist bullshit, again!

Turbulence!? When has the weather not been turbulent? When have not fools presumed their meager experience was the key to understanding all?
Science demands more. Or -at least- it used to.

Whose model was it (...just name one) 200 years ago? (Gee! I wonder!) Why not go back to Malthus... You'll get the same result.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-16, 08:57:20
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Greenhouse_Effect.svg/832px-Greenhouse_Effect.svg.png)

It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-16, 17:37:44
OK. How about this? The Obama administration, not content with throwing money down the drain on studies of the entire Earth's climate, now wants to spend 8 million dollars studying the effect of climate change indoors. Hmmm... give me 8 million and I'll be happy to re-adjust your thermostats and make sure that your humidifiers and dehumidifiers work right.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/16/epa-8-million-to-study-indoor-climate-change/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/16/epa-8-million-to-study-indoor-climate-change/)

Now that I think of it a little-- here's a freebie. They'll find that mold tends to grow in the bathroom. Reasons: It's humid in there. You took a steamy shower (possibly in more ways than one but let's let your private life stay private) and that guarantees an abundance of humidity. Through the day, in most homes, the light tends to be "off" when you're not using that room, so it's dark much of the time-- or if there is light it's dim because you use some sort of frosted windows on your bathroom windows. Mold loves humid, dark places. The utility room--- usually in the basement in Upper Midwest American homes-- is another great place for mold. Same reasons-- it's dark much of the time, and after doing a laundry it's likely to be humid. Besides, basements have a tendency to be damp much of the time anyway.

So-- a couple of freebie ideas about indoor climate.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2015-08-16, 19:13:22
Yup, they don't do science education in the US.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-16, 19:47:03
I think mold got out of their basements and it's invading their brains.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-16, 22:02:38
Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Is that the best you can do? Really? If that's the best you can come up with, then-- your argument is pretty lame.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-17, 04:28:20

Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Is that the best you can do? Really? If that's the best you can come up with, then-- your argument is pretty lame.

The little issue with your otherwise pertinent observations is their apparent intent in the context: Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.

You see, I also don't like anything about my government (or yours), but I don't think that any misreading of science on their part obviates science. I don't even think that misreading of science on the part of scientists (such as Oakdale's statistician) obviates science.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-17, 06:22:15
 
Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.
Ersi, you're not an idiot, hence you're a genius! That's the logic you've been using... Your "therefore"'s usually go beyond any logic a sane person would accept.
I don't know what Obama's "indoor" climate change studies are. (Would you mention what you speak of?) But I do know that his anti-coal, anti-fracking silliness is -- anti-human! (Mostly, black humans -- so you may not mind so much! Belfrager may or may not agree. :) )
But you may be an idiot, and think such is legitimate. (I honestly can't tell...) When you say that science "almost" matters to you, you still hedge!

Obama has taken serious steps to curtail and -soon- stop the U.S.'s use of coal. Why would he? Why should he? Indeed, why should the supply of coal not be used for industrialization?
And does he seriously think that China (and parts of Africa) will follow our lead! :)
That they should?
[...] I don't think that any misreading of science on their part obviates science [...]
Then please cite the science you rely upon for your opinions...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-17, 07:51:49

Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.
Ersi, you're not an idiot, hence you're a genius! That's the logic you've been using... Your "therefore"'s usually go beyond any logic a sane person would accept.

Careful, if you don't want to insult the person I was quoting. Namely, he was precisely using that logic.


I don't know what Obama's "indoor" climate change studies are. (Would you mention what you speak of?)

I was quoting someone. Sober up.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Macallan on 2015-08-17, 11:43:32

Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Well, look at your post. Implying that all climate change is crap because you don't understand what that study is for is, well, crap.

That said, I've been living here for a while now and it never ceases to amaze me how little actual science they teach in schools here. Maybe it's just TN, in fact I hope it is.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-08-17, 16:20:20
Maybe it's just TN, in fact I hope it is.

My high school science teacher refused to teach evolution. He said "We are skipping this chapter. God made everything and if you don't like that you can leave.". I promptly stood up and left. The administration didn't care at all and gave me the option of in school suspension (ISS) or go back to class... My experience in that class wasn't good from then on.

I correct or expand on things my son is taught all the time.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-17, 21:18:03
Is that the best you can do? Really?

Nope, I can do much better but you don't seem to me as a connoisseur of the great art of satire...
I need not even to take you seriously, others had already such boring trouble for me.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-17, 21:46:05
I was quoting someone. Sober up.
While it's true I missed the exchange you refer to (the topic, as it appeared in my browser, had split to a new page and I failed return to the previous one), one needn't be sober to note your obtuseness... Quoting someone usually involves naming them and using their words.
(And Macallan seems a little foggy on the meaning of "imply"...)
mjm might have said, somewhere, that climate change "is false", as in "catastrophic climate change as a result of human activity is a false conclusion". But your frequent puppetry is unbecoming, ersi.
It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.
Yes, ersi, everyone's basic texts us similar graphics to depict the greenhouse effect. But you surely know that such is a gross simplification: The devil's in the details!
Attempting to draw discrete conclusions from a closed dotted line (with arrows!) on a graphic is a pastime appropriate for children. For adults concerned with climatology, and science in general, finer detail is required.
And the details I'm familiar with don't add up to a catastrophic climate change...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-17, 22:04:16

It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.
Yes, ersi, everyone's basic texts us similar graphics to depict the greenhouse effect. But you surely know that such is a gross simplification: The devil's in the details!

But you are disagreeing precisely with the big picture. More correctly, you are completely  uninterested in the scientific topic. You are interested in the politics. You discredit the science based on the politics, all the time, incessantly, thus consistently talking past the real issue.

You have said nothing relevant about the science, except "warming, warming, warming", as if that were the (entire) science of climatology. It's not. Is ECB's stated goal of keeping inflation rates "below, but close to, 2%" relevant to economics? Is it economics? Is it the scientific definition of inflation rates? Is it a devil in the scientific details? No! It's sheer politics, absolutely nothing to do with science. Unfortunately this is the only thing you are interested in.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-17, 22:29:41
No! It's sheer politics, absolutely nothing to do with science. Unfortunately this is the only thing you are interested in.

I would say that, more than politics, Oakdale's defending a retrograde and doomed to failure economical policy.

The big game between developed countries it's not based in coal (or oil) but in technology. Technology for free, clean, endless energy. Only that will cause a shift of the energetic and environmental paradigm.
Only that can create sustainable development.

Oakdale's defending America's collapse. Obama and his advisers knows it perfectly.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-18, 00:14:13
Oakdale mentions the politics of the thing and you have a cow about that. Well--- I have bad news for you. Politics and science are in an incestuous relationship on climate change, and have been for quite awhile. The politics actually corrupts the science (why am I not surprised) so the end result is, at best, questionable.

It gets worse--- seems there's more than a little deception. On the part of the alarmists. In order to get everybody to make the changes that would be necessary to make us stop making so much CO2, they have to do stuff to data that makes it subject to glaring errors.

See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/how-we-broke-the-climate-change-debates-lessons-learned-for-the-future/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/how-we-broke-the-climate-change-debates-lessons-learned-for-the-future/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-18, 03:19:25
But you are disagreeing precisely with the big picture.
You, ersi, may prefer picture books and graphics... (I'll admit that D'Arcy Thompson's most famous volume was a lot of fun! But it advanced no ideas in his field, biology.) But what you call the big picture is -without the details and caveats- a simplistic surmise. And from that you'd get -- what? :)
Calling CO2 a pollutant is jejune. Oxygen is a better candidate! But you must use your pejorative terminology, for your purpose... (Perhaps you yourself don't consider fossil fuels the cause of dangerous climate change -- you've never actually said, that I recall. Would you care to go on record? :) ) At least, the political actors must; and that certainly includes the IPCC and most government agencies.

The big picture -as I see it- includes much that is out of focus and much that is obscured -- even when seen correctly. Looking at it through political lenses distorts it beyond recognition. (Looking at the politics surrounding the "issues" is something else. It's another and an important topic.) Shouldn't scientists be working on sharpening the focus, cleansing the grime and removing the obstacles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@mjm: In his farewell speech Eisenhower warned about government financed science
Quote
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm))
Every one remembers or has heard his warnings about the military-industrial complex... It's odd, how few know of his equally dire warnings only a few lines later!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-18, 04:52:56

You, ersi, may prefer picture books and graphics... (I'll admit that D'Arcy Thompson's most famous volume was a lot of fun! But it advanced no ideas in his field, biology.) But what you call the big picture is -without the details and caveats- a simplistic surmise. And from that you'd get -- what? :)

But you don't even have this much. You have nothing. And with nothing you only get nothing - as you have. Why don't you get on topic?


Calling CO2 a pollutant is jejune. Oxygen is a better candidate!

Because we have oxygen pollution in the air, oxygen waste in waters, and we have industrial technology that makes oxygen an ever more urgent concern that we should do something about?

A few pages ago, I wrote you off as totally insane and incapable of engaging this topic. You keep confirming your status and you even manage to make it worse. It's amazing really.


(Perhaps you yourself don't consider fossil fuels the cause of dangerous climate change -- you've never actually said, that I recall. Would you care to go on record? :) )

I have said everything relevant in this thread - before you began participating. Simply read up, it's all there. Not only are you devoid of your own relevant opinion, you are unable to read up on those who have an opinion. You only babble about nothing as if it were something. But it's nothing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-18, 21:25:45
Here's something of interest. It covers the tropics-- actually an area a bit larger than the tropics since it covers 40 North to 40 South-- winds and rainfall patterns. You might find it worth a look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-18, 22:44:47

Here's something of interest. It covers the tropics-- actually an area a bit larger than the tropics since it covers 40 North to 40 South-- winds and rainfall patterns. You might find it worth a look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/)

What's interesting here? This?...

Quote from: Willis Eschenbach

My hypothesis is that the earth has a thermoregulatory system keeping the global temperature within narrow bounds (e.g. ±0.3°C over the 20th century).

Why is it interesting?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-20, 18:55:34
I take it, ersi, that you disagree with Willis' "I think that the debate should not be about feedback at all, it should be a debate about the types and the effects of the various natural homeostatic mechanisms." (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/) Why? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-20, 19:12:53
We have discussed this point rather recently. You forget too fast.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-20, 19:57:05
Ah! Then you still maintain that magical words "industrial pollution" affect the earth's climate system... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-20, 20:32:00

Ah! Then you still maintain that magical words "industrial pollution" affect the earth's climate system... :)

And you think pollution magically adds up to zero.

Seriously, no, the point was something totally different, directly to do with how your article starts. I will not remind you. You are not worth it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-20, 22:52:38
Sorry to interrupt your love affair, gentleman's duel, whatever.
This is turning ridicule.

What we should be discussing at this thread, it's how to implement change.

What we should be discussing at this thread, it's how to convince underdeveloped countries to do it. We showed them the delights of
consumerism, so they can buy from us, and they started doing what we've done (and some wants to keep on doing it)... how to change that? How to solve that?

What we should be discussing at this thread, is the intergenerational problem. Why the next ones have to suffer because what we've done. Should they pay for it instead us?

What we should be discussing at this thread, is, basically, what a fucking future we want for ours sons.

What we should be discussing at this thread, is the humility required for stating that we created a hell of a fucking problem.

Not a small problem. At least, be courageous to approach it. To solve it, it's completely different. It demands much more than posting at forums. I do my part.

Post Scriptum. Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-21, 03:20:14
Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...
I don't much mind the language... But --granted that you almost understand the problem-- I'm amazed at your callousness: You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Go to confession!

Out habitat is in little danger from technology and industry, compared with what it faces from the political forces of Luddite-Environmentalists and silly World Government proponents.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-21, 04:06:02

Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...
I don't much mind the language... But --granted that you almost understand the problem-- I'm amazed at your callousness: You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Go to confession!

Out habitat is in little danger from technology and industry, compared with what it faces from the political forces of Luddite-Environmentalists and silly World Government proponents.

See, Belfrager, your questions cannot be discussed. More properly, your questions have the worst kind of answer because the greatest powers in the Occident want to keep their level of comfort. The will to obstructionism rules all. Simple observations matter nothing. And Oakdale has already earlier called morality itself evil.

Delusion is bad, self-delusion is worse, but active propagation of delusion due to wilful self-delusion is... let's call it unique.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-21, 07:21:25
In other words, ersi would tell everyone else how to live -- because he knows better than anyone else!
And, because some dare to question his omniscience, he uses his wits to berate them -- rather than refute them.
Well, Belfrager, at least you have an ignorant pope to lead you! ersi has only his own ignorance and sour disposition!
(There seems to be an awful lot of that, over the pond... Why are so many Europeans so pessimistic? You are not likely going to be allowed to screw things up again. "Relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten!" (http://www.vintage.org/features/blinkenlights.html))

Are you upset, frustrated and bemused -- that much of the world refuses to prostrate itself and subject itself to privation, because you have qualms?!

The so-called Third World will become prosperous, and thus deal with "pollution" as others have. Like I said above: Relax, and watch the blinking lights... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-21, 08:39:11

Are you upset, frustrated and bemused -- that much of the world refuses to prostrate itself and subject itself to privation, because you have qualms?!

You see (of course you don't see, but I'm just typing English here), it's not a matter of qualms. It's a matter of facts that have happened over and over and over again in human history. Roman Empire deforestated the Mediterranean. Forests grew back during the so-called Dark Ages. People actually died of polluted environment during the industrial revolution in England and America (and everywhere else, for that matter). Etc.

It's a matter of facts like this, not of qualms. You have always talked past the topic. You are free to go on and on talking past the topic. Nobody is stopping you. Just be true to your own principle, namely, since you consistently express panicked paranoia over that someone might meddle with your comfy life, then do the world a favour and keep yourself out of other people's way too. Keep away.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-21, 09:29:25
You seem, ersi, to have kept yourself out of it! I'm not much involved: I'm just "regular people" -- you're -by your own credence- a paragon! Be that, where you live; where others do, leave them alone -- until you've shown the power of your -whatever it is!- to make things better!

Read this (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350) (and tell me it isn't what you'd like...).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-21, 10:33:08

You seem, ersi, to have kept yourself out of it! I'm not much involved: I'm just "regular people" -- you're -by your own credence- a paragon! Be that, where you live; where others do, leave them alone -- until you've shown the power of your -whatever it is!- to make things better!

You know the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the failure to live up to one's own principles. You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives. (Your views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.) This is hypocrisy.

I do not have this principle. I have different principles to live up to. Being as dim-visioned as you are, you have not yet identified my principles properly, but even so it should be clear to you that I have no obligations to your principles.

Of course, you will not learn anything from this. I'm saying this simply to show that you are not fooling anybody but yourself here. Stay fooled as you wish.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-21, 13:32:18
You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Where's the "poverty" and "privation" at desiring a sustainable development?
Sustainability it's your best investment. Learn that.

I would feel guilty only if I insisted in keeping the destructive model you're defending.
I don't think that the course the western world has taken since (and including) the industrial revolution to be the best one at many aspects.

People at the richer nations are getting an increasing awareness of these problems and organizing themselves into pressure and activist groups so we can say that at least we tried to change.
Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-21, 16:43:04

Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.

Nah. When his grandchildren approach him with this question, he will just play dumb and sip his whisky. It seems to have worked throughout his life thus far.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-08-21, 20:41:59
It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-22, 03:45:37
@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of more people than any other system or ism; and only a fool would fail to recognize that increasing prosperity is the only sure way to afford the clean-up of pollution and the development of non-polluting alternative energy sources.
Unless, of course, you're willing to condemn millions, perhaps billions to a life that is ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"... (If you sincerely believe that only their "salvation" matters, preach! But don't "preach" Earthly Salvation via one of the oldest catechisms -- Utopianism. You're either too smart to have fallen for such yourself or not smart enough to convince anyone else.)
You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives.
Please read what I posted directly above...
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"? How do you yourself explain your own "spiritual" cupidity, ersi? Bah! Go flog yourself.
It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.
When you consider the number of prominent "scientists" who think the earth's "carrying capacity" of humans is two billion or less and who are willing to consider various means of "achieving" this "sustainable" number, I tend to agree with you.
But when you consider the actual science they've published to support this view, and how relatively few these scientists are -- it doesn't look quite so bad.
There seem to always have been apocalyptic cults... And Man has survived.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-22, 04:05:28

Please read what I posted directly above...
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"?

But it is. Because you are preaching from your own comfortable situation, when even your immediate neighbours don't share the same comforts (wealth and income inequality), so the claim that industrial revolution and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of people than anything else is highly contentious, to say the least. And somehow you manage to mention non-polluting alternative energy sources now when thus far you denied that pollution even exists, so evidently this is a secondary or tertiary thing that you bring up as it suits your propaganda, while prosperity is primary. Further, you assume that anywhere else than under industrially revolutionary free-market capitalism, people's lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Do you hear what you're saying? Hardly.

If prosperity matters, there are far more prosperous countries than the United States. But the main point is ecological sustainability. The United States colonises the rest of the world in order to sustain itself. This is not sustainable. There's nothing free-market about economic and military colonisation.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-22, 06:32:22
I confess, I did expect you, ersi, to recognize the reference to David Hume... Sorry. I had no idea that your ignorance was so extensive.
thus far you denied that pollution even exists
I've maintained that CO2 is no more a "pollutant" than Oxygen or Nitrogen or any other component of earth's atmosphere. Likewise, radioisotopes shall likely prove useful (...but I admit that nuclear weapons for use on this planet are a poor use).
Your moral sense warps how you see things. But I'm sure it's very systematic!
But the main point is ecological sustainability.
Then you're stuck between a rock (the nature of science and technology) and a hard place (human nature)! Not to mention the fairly established fact that the earth has never possessed what you call "ecological sustainability"...
But -by all means- save the world, by eating your vegetables! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-22, 09:44:24
Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=525.0). I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-22, 14:18:53
@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism [...]

I'm not discussing it per se but it's implications and consequences towards ecological systems. I keep defending a sustainable development and you keep not saying a word about it. Well, your silence about it says it all...

Besides, you're not even defending "free-market capitalism" but "amoral free-market capitalism" that puts a few industries profits above anyone's else right to a life with dignity and to pass to the next generations a better, not a worst world.

And I don't buy that you're defending the "American Way of Life". I'm certain many other Americans completely disagrees with
you.
This is not about defending countries or theories but about defending our common house as my ignorant Pope said...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-22, 16:50:27
Funny how Oakdale sees no connection between industrial pollution and ecology, while there's a straightforward causal link from industrial revolution to prosperity, non-polluting alternative energy sources, generosity, wisdom, and whatnot. Go figure.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-22, 22:04:51
Tying two threads together here: Belfrager is thinking of getting into farming.

Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

Animals produce CO2, as well as methane and maybe a couple of other greenhouse gasses. Plants use CO2 the same way animals use oxygen. Plants need CO2 to be able to breathe. So--- if you have a field devoted to growing corn, you NEED a lot of CO2 to make your plants thrive.

Just so's you know--- one man's pollutant is a plant's medicine.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-22, 23:47:15
You know that saying, "Follow the money"? Well, it seems that if you do that, the trail leads to some fascinating places--- and not necessarily the ones you'd expect.

Have a look at this trail.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-23, 05:01:32
Go figure.
Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced? :) 
Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=525.0). I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.
When the water-boy thinks he should be quarterback or coach, most people laugh at him. When he laughs back, they just realize how goofy he is... :)
(Of course, you probably think football is a bunch of guys just running up and down a lawn...)
The "economy thread" never went anywhere -- and that's where you'd prefer to stay! Sobeit. But what makes you competent to advise others that they should do the same?
More cogently: What secures your moral authority to implore (or to ask government to impel) them to?

I don't think you have what should be called a morality: You have tics and twitches, grievances and grudges, and a woefully grandiose (...nice term, no? :) ) estimation of your intellect!

Eat your vegetables! Save the world... (I'm afraid you'll become an agent of the Tiffids! But -still!- I think men will win. :) )
------------------------------------------------------------
@mjm: I seldom read WattsUp... But -for those interested in "politics" and environmentalism, my own state is considering this (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350)!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-23, 06:29:14

Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced? :) 

What living standard has any prophet of anything produced? Prophet means messenger. It's not a messenger's job to produce anything.

As soon as I mention someone who produced anything, such as the wind-up radio or ice energy storage system, you say they are not prophets, but inventors. And you'd be right, because it's the inventors who do stuff, not prophets. They are different functions. So, your question is malformed.

But we have already had a thread about someone who lives according to the extreme ecological ideals https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=452.0
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-23, 07:23:37
That thread was still-born, ersi, and you know it!

The "wind-up" radio...? :) How about the 50-mpg carburetor that runs on water for fuel? :) (All the major American auto manufacturers bought it, and buried it... Surely, you know that!?) ersi, your intellect is what's malformed.

If you can't understand anyone else's language (...and I mean anyone's -- a single other human being!) why do you keep posting? (Are you going to get a certificate for your English facility? I'd applaud it! You've done well; extremely well. But your comprehension will, I hope, not be a factor: You are like a 7-year old who can make almost all of the sounds but understands so little of the world that he knows next to nothing of what goes on there!) Take your rude and ignorant self back to school.
Your parents failed you. Would you likewise be a failure...?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-23, 09:02:14

If you can't understand anyone else's language...

Such as your queer use of the word "prophet" in your previous post? It's enough for me to understand that you don't understand the language you call your own.

Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-23, 12:02:31
This is what matters.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrWKx9UH.png&hash=36084ed322e3f78025e32f8569997dc2" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rWKx9UH.png)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-23, 14:19:38
@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-23, 15:11:28

@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.

He will not. The chart automatically reduces his margin for manoeuvre...
Let's see what his arguments are... that he only sees the pink circle in his monitor? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-23, 15:16:26
Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

That's correct for extensive, large scale industrial agricultural production.
Therefore the need for small, local and based at permaculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture)'s principles kind of farms. That's the only way of keeping the cycle balanced.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-24, 02:19:25
Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html (http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html)
I haven't read the article you linked to yet. But I have a question:

Which, solar or wind-up powers the broadcaster? :) (I'd bet, nuclear, coal or hydroelectric... You'd miss the point.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ersi and Belfrager: Don't give me Venn diagrams... Give me a readable proof of the Four Color Theorem!
Seriously, guys: You'd be happy with most of humanity (...actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence? You both only offer "solutions" that require our planet's population to be considerably less than it is now... Who do you "nominate" for extinction?
Or are you just silly pseudo-intellectuals who've chosen their fad to follow, regardless? :)

Have you guys figured out what to do about the heat-death of the Universe yet?

BTW, Belfrager: The diagram is the skeleton of an argument. You have to "flesh it out" for it to mean much of anything...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-24, 04:45:57

...most of humanity (...actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-24, 10:53:16


...most of humanity (...actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.


Indeed...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-26, 06:14:47
If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live... Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

I have no problem with either gentlemen becoming drop-outs. (Intellectually, they've already succeeded.) Nor do I mind their preaching their catechism. What I do take exception to is their insistence that the world's governments coerce others to do likewise -- which will, given certain realities, cause great harm.
Probably, not to ersi or Belfrager; and not likely to me, either. But they both claim some sort of moral stance for their views, which will -on the kindest realistic interpretation- result in catastrophe -- while the menace they "battle" might, on scant evidence, eventually do so...
Typical Europeans, I'd say.
(They did, after all, give us Communism, Fascism and Nazi-ism... And Socialism! [Such a meek and mild way to crush individuals...])

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?
To Belfrager I'd ask: What keeps you from being what you were meant to be...?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-26, 06:57:02

If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live... Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live. Other people may live if they accept the crumbs from the dumps and wastebins of the prosperous. Such dumps and wastebins only contain good nutritious and natural stuff - it's coming from the prosperous after all, so don't even dare to think otherwise!

On the other hand, if the not-so-well-off get in their heads to become subsistence farmers, they are a crazy environmentalist cult like Scientology, or drop-outs from society, Commie Fascists, obviously not humble enough to deserve to live. If they somehow manage to make a living, their lives are to be brutish and short.

Edit:

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?

What is a non-feel-good project that any science has accomplished? You never define your terms, so answer is impossible.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-26, 08:55:43
To Belfrager I'd ask: What keeps you from being what you were meant to be...?

Don't know what you mean by that.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-26, 20:55:16
If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live.
Nope. But the environmentalist cranks don't deserve the political power to decide what level of prosperity is appropriate for everyone... :)
Consider yourself corrected.
(How you manage to mangle even the simplest expressions into such grotesque caricatures is beyond me!
Have you always had this "talent"? :) )
Anyone (...who can afford it!) can be a subsistence farmer! Who's stopping them? But even you'll admit that the entire world's population can't be. So, what's your solution?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-26, 21:21:27

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live.
Nope. But the environmentalist cranks don't deserve the political power to decide what level of prosperity is appropriate for everyone... :)
Consider yourself corrected.

Similarly, consider yourself corrected on the simple point that industrial pollution is harmful to life on Earth in many ways. It's destructive of environment and even affects climate. And these are empirical scientific statements, not political, dude. But of course you never understand empirical science, you are always about politics, as if someone were about to take your money away.


Anyone (...who can afford it!) can be a subsistence farmer! Who's stopping them? But even you'll admit that the entire world's population can't be. So, what's your solution?

The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.

And nobody ever asked the entire world's population to become subsistence farmers. Only those who want it. Those who want it will do it when it's affordable. I in fact grew up this way and I always wanted to live like this, but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-26, 21:45:04
I in fact grew up this way and I always wanted to live like this, but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible.

Of course it's impossible. It's a mater or resistance, not a way of living as it should be.

Countries are importing between 60 to 80% of what they consume. Produced, as you said it very well, at the other side of the planet, carried by airplane and cheaper than locally produced quality food. This system is poisoning the world with chemical hydroponic systems while conquering it by way of starvation if people don't buy it.
This is not about "capitalism" only. This is about war.

Idiots keeps on accepting it, the brave ones resists. The change it's happening and Europeans are everyday reacting more and more to such an attack.
How is it possible to make laws forbidding people having their seeds from their plants? that's what's happening, you'll have to buy the seeds to Monsanto company or any other. They're copyrighting food.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-27, 02:38:07
consider yourself corrected on the simple point that industrial pollution is harmful to life on Earth in many ways
I needed no such correction: Pollution is -by definition- harmful...
It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.
For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets... :)
And these are empirical scientific statements
...made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.
You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you? :) Almost a third of the world has tried that... How'd it work out?

but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible
In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions! So sorry, dude... You must be the first child ever to be required to grow up!
But -truth be told- I don't believe you: I think you got lazy and your government wouldn't support your idleness.

@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis... Please see a doctor! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-27, 06:06:51

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.
For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets... :)

This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics.


And these are empirical scientific statements
...made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged...

Sure, science can be politicised. That's the way you want it, but I'm not going along with it.



The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.
You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you? :) Almost a third of the world has tried that... How'd it work out?

All areas of economy are regulated to some degree in every country. No exception. The only question is to what degree and in what relative proportions.

You can choose to destroy local integration by enabling global outsourcing or you can choose to enable local integration by having controls on global outsourcing. The principle is simple, but since there's more massive turnover in global corporate trade...


but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible
In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions!

In other words, you are saying that the way I grew up was not reality. This is really the bottom line, isn't it: Reality is whatever you say it is, never how people actually live and experience.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-27, 09:45:13
@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis... Please see a doctor!  :) 
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.380;msg=45227)

Why? do we get syphilis by eating California's fruits? That's a novelty for me...
Anyway rest assured, I eat nothing from Central Valley. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 01:43:40
It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.
For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets...  :)
He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles. If he would forgo the egregious political machinations of the AGW crowd, I'd give him his quietude... Ohm!

Eat your vegetables, ersi! (And you and Belfrager can avoid California's Central Valley's largesse, easily! Can't you? :) )

Is this topic about AGW or something else? (Perhaps, marginalized European pseudo-intellectuals and/or mystics!? And how the world would be run, if they were "in charge"... :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-28, 07:11:15

He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles.

We covered this point rather well. You were not asking for scientific articles on the topic.

Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.

A specific prediction and the theoretical model as such are different things. If the model is dynamic (non-linear) - which it is in case of the greenhouse - your insistence on warming only demonstrates your ignorance. Your obsession with politics, worship of industry, and insane anti-environmentalism are not exactly helping either.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58
Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.
Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)... (But you no longer "like" him... :) )

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" -- I take it? Where are the papers that document anomalous climate change? And -more importantly- where are the papers that attribute such to human activity?
If the problem is de-forestation, why do we need to stop burning coal? If the problem is burning coal, why do we need to dispense with natural gas? If the problem is "carbon" -- why shouldn't we wipe the earth clean of life!?
(Your answer will likely be incoherent: Something akin to Prof. Ehrlich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich)'s screeds.)
Seriously: Pollution is a perennial problem. "Solving" it takes money -- and the means to make more.
If you're not willing to sacrifice a large portion of your ("their"? :( ) population, you need an understanding of the real world. Which, I think, you not only lack but prefer to ignore...

I'm sure you abhor GMOs. And nuclear power generation. And everything since the invention of printing! (You'd have been against that too.) Your stance is not actually incoherent -except to you: You'd like the world to return to feudalism.
But you won't say so!
Ain't gonna happen, dude! (Do you know where the term "dude" comes from...? Let me know, either here or in private... I promise to expose your ignorance!)

Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population -- to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world? Yikes! To my way of thinking, that makes you a monster!
But prosperity is the only good solution.
And you reject it!

Which, to my way of thinking, makes you a ... (Well, you know.)

BTW: If you want to be a "subsistence" farmer, you need to know what that means! (You'll only grow enough to keep body and soul together, dude!) If you want more, you'll need to "relax" your penchant for "commanding" your fellows...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-28, 10:51:08

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)... (But you no longer "like" him... :) )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?


Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" -- I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...


Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population -- to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-28, 12:41:25


Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)... (But you no longer "like" him... :) )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?


Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" -- I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...


Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population -- to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.


Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"? You'll have to eliminate all life on Earth. "Global Warming"? You'll certainly have to get rid of every modern device since the invention of--- hey, Og just discovered he can make fire! "Climate Change"? Uh---- I don't know how you stop the Earth from doing what it has been doing since the planet came together as one cohesive body. It's always been going from warm to cool to warm to cool and so on.

I would submit here that industrial farming, for all the bad rap it gets, may leave the human race in a better position to adapt to change than subsistence farming does. Of course, in order to do this industrial farming itself has to be able to adapt--- change is gonna happen and there's not a lot you and I can do to stop it.

Right now we have the ability-- poorly managed I'll admit but we have it-- to feed people all over the world. On your subsistence farm, depending only on your own abilities--- you're subject to floods, drought, bugs, vandals and I don't know what else that can decimate crops. Industrial farms are subject to the same thing of course--- but large-scale farming that covers an enormous area can absorb trouble a little better simply because of the "economy of scale".
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-28, 13:21:15
Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world.

Negro is just Spanish for black, and from the perspective of a Germanic language I'd say it's Latinate words that obfuscate. :)

Anyway, politically correct would be something like Afro/African-American, not black.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-28, 13:25:34

Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

When you know/If you knew e.g. Russian, you would not want to be called Black. You would definitely prefer Negro. Trust me on this.


About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

Colloquially, yes. Scientifically, no.


You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"?

No.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 15:45:16
ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments...* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; I don't see how you've managed to accept anything as science since Aristotle! :) Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere?
And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO2 comes to mind... :) )
I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms.
If you won't speak the language everyone else understands, shouldn't the noises you make be called babbling? :)
One simple example (I've asked you about) is "transient climate sensitivity". Can you give me a figure for this (in the appropriate units) and support its derivation? Or would you prefer to keep muttering "greenhouse effect"? :)
------------------------------------------------
* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-08-28, 19:50:16
Right here, "negro" is the preferred word for calling the African race all around (forget bullshit like "Afro-Americans" or "afrodescendants"). It's offensive only if used harshly against someone.

The other word, "preto" (which equals to "black") is not widely used and must be applied with care. If you have very close relationships with somebody dark-skinned, you are allowed to call him/her this way.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-28, 20:47:17
They will never understand the difference between a Preto and a Negro, Barulheira. Too much subtle, both for them and for their blacks.

Speaking about African related things and back to thread, Chinese already bought all coal mines at the oriental part of Africa and are building an huge system of railroads to take the coal to the ports where Chinese freighters carries it directly for China. Last year, a new energy plant running with coal was built per day in China. 360 new ones only last year.
Probably they will double it this year.

Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 21:59:01
Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.
What words are those, Bel?
Where coal is plentiful and cheap, it will be used...

BTW: What happened to Europe's forests?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-29, 07:29:16

ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments...* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; ...

If (industrial) pollution (of air and water) exists, AGW is not a theory, but a simple common-sense fact along with acid rains and ozone depletion. The only thing wrong with it is the name. The name implies as if it were (only) about warming.


* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology... :)

"Toy model" is not terminology. It's a dyslogistic. It may become a term as soon as you define it so that it can be distinguished from a proper model, but there's never any hope that you ever define anything.


Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere? And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO2 comes to mind... :) )

But you just said that it comes from the beginning of atmospheric science. Nobody ever refuted it, so if you know the topic, you know the literature. Or else, as usual, you have no clue what you are asking and even this response here is futile.


One simple example (I've asked you about) is "transient climate sensitivity". Can you give me a figure for this (in the appropriate units) and support its derivation? Or would you prefer to keep muttering "greenhouse effect"? :)

Indeed, you asked about it once, but there are two problems with it. The way you asked was, "Can you even cite a derivation of the IPCC's recent value for the transient climate sensitivity...? Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do." Meaning, you were asking about *predictions* again. This is one problem with how you were asking.

The second problem is that I already replied. I replied with reference to economics, by which it is clear how your question is misguided and loaded. Ecology is like economy. The relevant models of both have the same nature - they are non-linear. Therefore in those sciences nobody ever predicts anything. The correct terms are project and forecast.

For example, on a static model, a bicycle cannot stand up, much less a monocycle. It simply cannot. If you put it up to stand, you can tell (edit: i.e. the model predicts) it will fall. However, on a dynamic model - on the move - it can stand up pretty well and you cannot tell when it falls, if ever. On a dynamic model, it's not the model's job to tell whether the bicycle runs or not. Rather, the model describes under which circumstances it runs and under which circumstances it falls. It's up to the model to identify the circumstances correctly, but it's purely up to the circumstances to materialise. So, it's not about prediction, but about structural analysis, projection and forecast. /edit

This has not yet reached you, as seen from how you cluelessly go on about predictions of warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-08-29, 09:51:12
Oakdale's paradise. Business as usual.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIeTDnOS.jpg&hash=a213ab23c38d9600b43e15161712e360" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IeTDnOS.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-08-30, 00:26:21
I have always thought that the stuff about being an African-American was doo-lah.  They are American and can be black American, white American or whatever in particular issues of definitive discussion. Isn't everyone meant to be equal yet this liberal daftness is emphasising something different.  What is more disgusting is when you get some negroe man waxing about how he is a nigger which is disgusting. It would be anathema for a non-black person to do that but okay for them? Such ignorance only detracts from the word 'dignity.'
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-30, 06:11:53
Someone once said "If you need to assert your dignity you don't have any..." :) (My paraphrase.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-31, 07:14:30
AGW is not a theory, but a simple common-sense fact along with acid rains and ozone depletion
...so, the common-sense you adhere to defies scientific explication.* Interesting! But I'm not sure I can be convinced that "common-sense" is a faultless -not to say infallible!- substitute for what I'd call science...
Of course, you don't (and likely can't) try to convince me: It's against you "principles", such as they are.

A simple question (or two...): How do you go from the facts of local pollution to peril to the "climate"? Shouldn't there be some sort of science to support such a leap of logic? (And, given how much the AGW science has failed both confirmation and predictive tests, what keeps you keen to see its gross political aims successful?)

"Pollution" can be very bad! But -even had there never been humans- bad stuff could have and would have happened; Man did not kill the dinosaurs...

Similarly, the question arises:
What -besides your penchant for "definitions"- makes you think there is such a thing as the climate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Corns and gout prove that lower extremities are a severe danger to bipeds!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-31, 07:36:52

A simple question (or two...): How do you go from the facts of local pollution to peril to the "climate"? Shouldn't there be some sort of science to support such a leap of logic? (And, given how much the AGW science has failed both confirmation and predictive tests, what keeps you keen to see its gross political aims successful?)

Simply, we are not dealing with facts of local pollution. When acid rains generated in USA fall down in Japan, it's not a local fact. Ozone depletion is surely a global fact.

There's no leap of logic here. Only blind denialism makes you think there is.


Similarly, the question arises:
What -besides your penchant for "definitions"- makes you think there is such a thing as the climate?

So, there's no climate. Good to see you reaching your logical conclusion. Just one more little step to finalise it: Say that there's no economy either. There's just occasional manufacturing and sales of some stuff, a local thing with natural zero sum end result.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-31, 16:44:28
Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin? Ever see the air in Beijing? I hear tell that it's remarkably easy to do--- and all that coal-fired smog just has to be producing healthy-- or unhealthy-- amounts of acid rain.

The US has done a remarkable job in cleaning up our air--- once upon a time, seeing the air in any major city in the US was almost as easy as Beijing's air is to see now-- so how come we're STILL the international bad-guy for acid rain--- able to produce acid rain that goes three-quarters around the Earth (given prevailing winds)? How come China, which is much closer and at the present time much dirtier, gets off the hook for the acid rain falling in Japan?

Note: When I say "see the air", I do NOT mean "see through the air". There are times when, at noonday, it is quite impossible to see more than a few feet in Beijing because the smog is that heavy. No--- you can SEE the particles floating in the air.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-08-31, 18:07:58
Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?


Everything I've ever heard says the winds go the other way. From Japanese balloon bombs to weather. (http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true) It seems more likely our pollutants goto Canada. This (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/air-pollution-china-is-spreading-across-pacific-us-180949395/?no-ist) (2 year old) article suggests China's pollution is actually coming to the US. Caused in part by manufacturing products for the US.

As happens so often with this subject... Both sides are moving towards opinion based "facts".
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-08-31, 21:03:52
The US isn't the international bad guy for acid rain -- its Acid Rain Program is a poster child -- on the other hand, EU SO2 emissions were reduced by 70% while US SO2 emissions were reduced by "only" 65%. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-08-31, 21:50:36

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?


Everything I've ever heard says the winds go the other way. From Japanese balloon bombs to weather. (http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true) It seems more likely our pollutants goto Canada. This (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/air-pollution-china-is-spreading-across-pacific-us-180949395/?no-ist) (2 year old) article suggests China's pollution is actually coming to the US. Caused in part by manufacturing products for the US.

As happens so often with this subject... Both sides are moving towards opinion based "facts".

Well, I was reading about it in the 1980's, so I cannot doublecheck everything simply by googling, and yes, I got the direction wrong. But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's? At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's, but for Oakdale it has meanwhile become a local problem.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-08-31, 23:46:54
But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

I was young so that would most probably be a list of things I was taught that turned out to be wrong scientifically.

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-01, 03:32:06

But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

I was young so that would most probably be a list of things I was taught that turned out to be wrong scientifically.

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

Very clever. You can repeat the same every thirty years to see how current scientific knowledge ages. This teaches you to never have an opinion one way or another.

Edit: In the 80's the topic was not politicised and and it was not politically polarising. This is the main thing that has changed since then.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-01, 15:36:59
On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

My favorite encyclopedia is my 6th edition Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Konversations-Lexikon). Note that you don't need a physical copy to access the work these days, for example see here (https://archive.org/details/meyersgrossesko04meyegoog).* I make good use of Archive.org, DBNL.org and Project Gutenberg on my ereader -- in fact it's the primary reason I bought it.

* That being said, electronically it's a poor experience even finding the relevant parts, let alone actually looking something up.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-01, 18:23:16
My favorite encyclopedia is my 6th edition Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Konversations-Lexikon). Note that you don't need a physical copy to access the work these days, for example see here (https://archive.org/details/meyersgrossesko04meyegoog).* I make good use of Archive.org, DBNL.org and Project Gutenberg on my ereader -- in fact it's the primary reason I bought it.

Oooh nice. I'll have to check out your link later. You've posted Archive.org in relation to retro games before and turned me onto that site. Project Gutenberg is well known, of course. DBNL.org will require some translation patients.

* That being said, electronically it's a poor experience even finding the relevant parts, let alone actually looking something up.

I love the smell of old books too. Has a way of pulling me in.


Very clever. You can repeat the same every thirty years to see how current scientific knowledge ages. This teaches you to never have an opinion one way or another.

Meh. Healthy skepticism isn't really so clever nor always so common...


politically polarising.

Not that I want to dance around nomenclature with you, but: "Polarizing" tends to mean drastic opposition across a table of opinion. You completely lose me with the political part. I'm just not an alarmist. Technologies to burn coal cleanly and reduce emissions across the board are coming online. Batteries in the last, hell, 3 years has improved dramatically. We are moving in the right direction we just need to keep pushing the development and implementation of technology (which is the opinion I've stated many times). Climate change has been a reality for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere and will change with or without us. Do we effect it? Of course. So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

Change is as much about circumstances as understanding. You can't always force it and there's no reason to destabilize economies yet.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-01, 18:58:08
I love the smell of old books too. Has a way of pulling me in.

Sure. But mostly you just don't read an encyclopedia like a novel. ;)

DBNL.org will require some translation patients.

Hehe, I doubt the few texts in other languages will be of much interest to the general public regardless.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-01, 19:10:30
Sure. But mostly you just don't read an encyclopedia like a novel.

Damn. I was afraid I was doing it wrong, lol.

Lots more page turning and swapping volumes but surrounded by reference books has always been more my thing.

Dad had a vast collection of novels and such. He used to suggest some for me but I never really got into them. Perhaps one day I will. They aren't going anywhere.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-01, 20:00:24
Dad had a vast collection of novels and such. He used to suggest some for me but I never really got into them. Perhaps one day I will. They aren't going anywhere.

Yes they are. There's a time for everything in life, maybe their time haven't arrived yet, maybe their time have already passed by.
Sagesse it's all about knowing the right time.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-01, 20:27:59
Sagesse it's all about knowing the right time.

A fair point for a farmer.  :P

Continued (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1451.msg45522#msg45522)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-02, 01:53:45
Climate change has been a reality for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere and will change with or without us. Do we effect it? Of course. So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.
My apologies for this quibble, but sometimes the use of almost the right word creates an impression that was not intended... :)
I assume you meant "Do we affect it?" since effect would imply cause and control, which would say too much!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-02, 02:48:12
I assume you meant "Do we affect it?" since effect would imply cause and control, which would say too much!

Ah, my old nemesis - affect vs effect... We meet again. :P

While we're at it:
Batteries in the last, hell, 3 years has have improved dramatically.


You leave me alone, sir!  :mad:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-02, 23:54:39

politically polarising.

Not that I want to dance around nomenclature with you, but: "Polarizing" tends to mean drastic opposition across a table of opinion. You completely lose me with the political part.

As does Oakdale me.


So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

One way to do it is to go back the way we came. Do we really need more invasion and pervasion from technology that we didn't need a few decades ago?


Change is as much about circumstances as understanding. You can't always force it and there's no reason to destabilize economies yet.

You lost me totally on the economic point there. How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-04, 22:54:24
How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Evident but just tell me something for my curiosity, do you think that it's possible stable economies? I mean, stable and sustainable, economies? Just yes or no, no need for too much explanations,  I'll know what you mean.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-08, 09:01:22

How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Evident but just tell me something for my curiosity, do you think that it's possible stable economies? I mean, stable and sustainable, economies? Just yes or no, no need for too much explanations,  I'll know what you mean.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-08, 22:17:46
Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

I agree but not entirely. There's no way of financing a "social economy" based only at goods, products and means of production. It doesn't produces the enough cash required to.

Of course, cash it's an illusion, thanks to Breton Woods, just funny numbers inside computers.

Let's go back to AGW, much more important, it destroys any possibility of correcting past errors. Economy is just a by product.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-09, 06:43:18
Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.
And if only someone "smart enough" were put in charge -- all would be well!? :)
You're still a Soviet, ersi... You just want to be the Lenin or Stalin. (Belfrager has a similar "problem"... :) )
Let's go back to AGW, much more important, it destroys any possibility of correcting past errors. Economy is just a by product.
Are you, sir, Antediluvian? Or merely Quixotic?
You seem (much like ersi...) to know little of science, specially climatology. The "talking points" editorials and postmodern critiques of science are grist for the mill of ideologues of various stripes. But when the real world -and the science that pays attention to it- disparages your "stance" you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?
Are you just too old to learn? :) (Perhaps Kuhn was onto something...? :) Of course, others had had the same insights, long before he was born!)

AGW is a political/economic theory desperately seeking to perpetuate itself! It's scientific underpinnings are not near secure enough to support it, to the extent that the "true believers" need... (The world will survive this latest apocalyptic cult.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-09, 09:24:03

I agree but not entirely. There's no way of financing a "social economy" based only at goods, products and means of production. It doesn't produces the enough cash required to.

I didn't say "based only at goods etc." I said shift the focus of values.

On one side, there's a thing, let's say, food, that has value. On the other side, there's the measure of value, expressed in currency. In capitalism, financial markets mistake the measure of value for the value itself, whereas in reality it's the thing that has the actual value.

I'm not saying that economic units of measurement, such as currency, are worthless. I'm only saying that they are units of measurement, not commodities of actual value. A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-09, 09:54:52
I didn't say "based only at goods etc." I said shift the focus of values.

On one side, there's a thing, let's say, food, that has value. On the other side, there's the measure of value, expressed in currency. In capitalism, financial markets mistake the measure of value for the value itself, whereas in reality it's the thing that has the actual value.

I'm not saying that economic units of measurement, such as currency, are worthless. I'm only saying that they are units of measurement, not commodities of actual value. A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...
But you did say that you (or someone else) gets to decide what they mean...
I  beg to differ.
Neither you nor any of your political favorites has any power to affect "the economy" or "the climate" or "human nature"... Except arbitrarily.  And, BTW, the climate is something we'd like to understand, isn't it? :)
But you're still stuck in the "command and control" mode... And you don't (perhaps, can't) realize that you don't know enough to do anything.

Please show me the papers that purport to explain extreme weather, as a result of the greenhouse effect...

(Failing that, show me the papers that document increased extreme weather. I'd like to see that, just because I know better...)

Another theoretical nicety I'd like to hear of: What is the connection between the greenhouse effect and extreme weather... (Surely, there's a great deal of "science" to support that?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should take a poll, and show that most "people" agree with you! That, after all, is what you believe "science" to be... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-09, 10:18:49

Please show me the papers that purport to explain extreme weather, as a result of the greenhouse effect...

(Failing that, show me the papers that document increased extreme weather. I'd like to see that, just because I know better...)

Another theoretical nicety I'd like to hear of: What is the connection between the greenhouse effect and extreme weather... (Surely, there's a great deal of "science" to support that?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should take a poll, and show that most "people" agree with you! That, after all, is what you believe "science" to be... :)

Ever since you demonstrated your absolute lack of concern for science, its basics and for scientific consensus, I stopped caring to show you anything. You don't think that climate exists, so you have no say on the topic.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-09-09, 11:44:46

... extreme weather...
(... extreme weather...)
... extreme weather...
I don't think the matter is about extremes. It's about shifting averages.
(BTW: you lot should have lessons about the proper usage of "its" and "it's".  :furious:)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-09, 14:50:49
I don't think the matter is about extremes. It's about shifting averages.
(BTW: you lot should have lessons about the proper usage of "its" and "it's".  :furious:)

To be fair, the new averages are somewhat "extreme". That's kind of the problem. :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-09, 15:18:40

I don't think the matter is about extremes. It's about shifting averages.
(BTW: you lot should have lessons about the proper usage of "its" and "it's".  :furious:)

To be fair, the new averages are somewhat "extreme". That's kind of the problem. :P


Has Earth ever known a time when the averages haven't been extreme? It seems to swing from warm to cold and back again often enough, if you take a good look at the thing over a long period of time.

Right now we're having a bit of warmth, with its accompanying longer growing seasons and relative prosperity. Stick around, the little ice-age is coming back around for a return engagement, with shorter growing seasons and relative poverty.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-09, 17:42:56
Right now we're having a bit of warmth, with its accompanying longer growing seasons and relative prosperity.

Have you ever heard of too much of a good thing? In fact, with desertification accelerating, the prosperity has already become poverty. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is all but irrefutable. Saying the climate is always changing doesn't change this.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Factionwidgets.org%2Fen%2Fe%2Fco2-m%2F600-keeling.png&hash=23557e41d9b8a173a5c717785bb8b80d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://actionwidgets.org/en/e/co2-m/600-keeling.png) These CO2 aren't increasing this quickly on their own. What other explanation does anyone have besides human activity? Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 has the icecaps retreat due to rising temperatures. What's been going on since than? Industrialization and the accompanying CO2.

The opposition to do the climate data is purely political and without scientific merit. Perhaps it's because politicians receive campaign funds from traditional polluting industries and the oil companies. Perhaps some people fear that it's human advancement and prosperity vs tree hugging hippie crap.

I can assure them this is not the case. There are multiple areas in which "green" is good economic policy replete with business opportunities. For example, China is dominating the solar panel market, while America fails to cash in on the new industry and missing out of the good paying jobs making them. Solar panels are but one example of industries and jobs created by investing in clean technologies. The market for hybrid and electric cars is improving and in the next couple decades at least hybrids will be the norm. In America we need to get in gear, so speak, and be the ones making the batteries for those instead of China. There is some hope in that area, though. Telsa is building a "gigaplant" here in Nevada for that. And guess what? Those batteries can power a lot more than just cars, as it turns out. I could go on for pages about the new opportunities created in "green" technologies and reducing CO2 emissions. These new economic growth areas will exist if AGW is true or not. I dare say we're on the cusp of new industrial revolution and to say it would be shame to miss out because some GOP politicians don't want to lose money from Exxonmobile and friends.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-09-09, 18:32:37
For example, China is dominating the solar panel market, while America fails to cash in on the new industry and missing out of the good paying jobs making them.

The average assembly worker in Shenzhen now makes 2000 RMB ($328) per month.
The average auto assembly worker makes $23.73 per hour. Do the math.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-09, 19:49:59
Both sides of this tend to go hyperbolic.

I'm sure a graph that's blowing the numbers right off the grid isn't at all over stating a 1.81 ppm, in a year, rise.

Just for perspective here's a graph showing sea levels over millions of years...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png)

I do believe this can be resolved. But taking the "polar opposite" is the most tactless way to achieve anything. It's so damned obvious how politicians get their money so clearly this is their fault. But only 61% of Americans believe in global warming and 40% of those just believe it's part of nature's cycle (probably because of things like that graph I just posted.). And they really are right, except 100% should know global warming is a thing that's happening and all those should realize we are the ones affecting it. Doesn't matter where political funding comes from and who's to blame when voters take their say. Aside from the fact not every environmental bill has made it without getting cut or eliminated, what is needed for the "better deal" that needs to happen? Well, politically we need the next President to be a Democrat and just once during their term they will need a congressional majority. But that isn't the only way. Not even close.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-09, 21:12:53
AGW is a political/economic theory desperately seeking to perpetuate itself! It's scientific underpinnings are not near secure enough to support it, to the extent that the "true believers" need... (The world will survive this latest apocalyptic cult.)
Oh my God! Another sign of the End of the World... :)

@Midnight Racoon: That (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg45900#msg45900)'s an odd mix of Cargo Cult Science and conspiracy theory! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-09, 23:07:36

AGW is a political/economic theory desperately seeking to perpetuate itself! It's scientific underpinnings are not near secure enough to support it, to the extent that the "true believers" need... (The world will survive this latest apocalyptic cult.)
Oh my God! Another sign of the End of the World... :)

@Midnight Racoon: That (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg45900#msg45900)'s an odd mix of Cargo Cult Science and conspiracy theory! :)


"Cargo Cult Science" caught my attention just now. It's a strange cause-and-effect thing at bottom.

The cargo cults got started on the South Sea islands during WW2. The marines would come in, build a make-shift airfield, then planes would land and disgorge tons of supplies so our guys could fight the Japanese. The islanders saw this happen, and reasoned that building airfields would cause the planes to come. So--- after our guys left, that's what the islanders did. Problem: The planes didn't come.

The islanders didn't realize the cause and effect thing. The marines built their airfields because the planes were coming--- the islanders built airstrips believing that would bring the planes.

So---what are the odds that we're causing climate change, and what are the odds that we're just along for the ride while the planet does what it was going to do whether or not we were here? For my part, I think we give ourselves way too much credit for either being able to harm or save the planet--- it's not so easy as selling carbon-credits or changing out incandescent bulbs for CFC (or LED) bulbs.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-10, 06:00:07
Are you, sir, Antediluvian? Or merely Quixotic?

A severe case of cognitive dissonance... not sure it can be treated.

You remember me your compatriots defending the world created half a thousand years ago, fossiles included. Exactly the same mind set.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-10, 06:33:02

For my part, I think we give ourselves way too much credit for either being able to harm or save the planet--- it's not so easy as selling carbon-credits or changing out incandescent bulbs for CFC (or LED) bulbs.

This is resoundingly false at least on the first part. Already ancient civilisations caused their own ecological destruction so many times in so many places that it's common knowledge for everyone who has been through a non-American basic school.

On the second part, I tend to agree that humanity cannot save itself, but this is due to human nature, not due to technological or political impossibility. Technologically or politically everything is possible, but sheer human willingness to self-destruct is most likely going to conquer all other odds.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-10, 15:55:21
So---what are the odds that we're causing climate change,
100 to 1 for at this stage in our history. Too bad the casino don't offer bets on this. Tell me if it's just coincidence that CO2 emissions have been raising at the same time the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase and the average global temperature as well. On these forums, posters have complained that they heard of "global cooling" and now there's concern about global warming. Therefore they disbelieve science. So what happened to the global cooling? Humanity and its CO2 emissions. Back then, climatologists couldn't predicate that atmospheric CO2  concentrations would increase this drastically

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grida.no%2Fimages%2Fseries%2Fvg-climate%2Flarge%2F7.jpg&hash=62f6a0b244a78624c46f797610dac803" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/7.jpg)

Again, how much to you believe in coincidence? We had rapid industrialization in Europe and the US and in later years that spread to various Asian nations. I already mentioned CO2 levels and the temperatures. This is not difficult to understand. Neither is scientifically questionable. Unfortunately, our corrupt politicians made it  political issue so they can continue to get money from traditional energy providers. Instead of clinging to the past, let's ensure future prosperity by investing in renewable, no pollution energy sources. It can be done. Here in Las Vegas, we get energy from the Hoover dam. Nearby Nellis Airforce Base has begun construction of of 15 megawatt solar project (yes, it's actually trivial to store the energy and you won't run out of power at night or if it's cloudy, rainy, snowy...:p ) I already mentioned the economic benefits of the new industries created around cleaner energy sources.

Again, though, even if the climate data is somehow proven false (although I don't see how) the cleaner air will benefit everyone from reduced allergies, lung conditions, etc to side benefits such as our mountains looking even more majestic when not shrouded in smog.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-10, 22:25:36
A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...

Even worst, not even anymore "words wriiten on paper" but a casino game about how much those words will "value" a year from now.
you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?

Because I thought that youl'd be able at least to understand when the Pope adresses the populace. My fault, you're even bellow that.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-11, 11:34:04
Has Earth ever known a time when the averages haven't been extreme? It seems to swing from warm to cold and back again often enough, if you take a good look at the thing over a long period of time.

Only when it becomes too extreme compared to the preceding equilibrium, which would not be pleasant. I'm sure there's fatalists, misanthropes and masochists who would love it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: tt92 on 2015-09-11, 23:42:33

A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...

Even worst, not even anymore "words wriiten on paper" but a casino game about how much those words will "value" a year from now.
you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?

Because I thought that youl'd be able at least to understand when the Pope adresses the populace. My fault, you're even bellow that.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the Pope bellows?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-11, 23:45:21


A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...

Even worst, not even anymore "words wriiten on paper" but a casino game about how much those words will "value" a year from now.
you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?

Because I thought that youl'd be able at least to understand when the Pope adresses the populace. My fault, you're even bellow that.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the Pope bellows?


Why do you think certain documents were called "Papal Bulls"???
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-12, 01:06:35
Why do you think certain documents were called "Papal Bulls"
Quit so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: tt92 on 2015-09-12, 01:29:10



A ton of rye is a whole different thing than the words "ton of rye" written on paper, but financial markets only deal in words on paper. Even worse, they deal in digits in computers...

Even worst, not even anymore "words wriiten on paper" but a casino game about how much those words will "value" a year from now.
you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?

Because I thought that youl'd be able at least to understand when the Pope adresses the populace. My fault, you're even bellow that.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the Pope bellows?


Why do you think certain documents were called "Papal Bulls"???

I always thought it was a sort of abbreviation.
Sometimes they hit and sometimes they didn't.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-12, 04:14:07
Quit so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If you don't know when they're "right" it doesn't matter! Put succinctly: In science, why it's right matters a great deal -- at least in some disciplines...
Some people (including so-called scientists) exempt climatology. (Why?)
Because I thought that youl'd be able at least to understand when the Pope adresses the populace. My fault [...]
Yes, it is your fault: Not understanding when the Pope speaks with authority and when he's talking out of his a**! You're a pagan, at heart...
it's just coincidence that CO2 emissions have been raising at the same time the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase and the average global temperature as well.
Unless the mechanism is reasonably described and the "effect" continues unabated, yeah. The mere correlation means -- Cargo Cult science!
It's approaching 20 years that there's been no appreciable "rise" in temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 has increased unabated! Explain that.
But I'd ask you to do so scientifically, not rhetorically.

mjm gets it pretty much right: He understands Cargo Cult science; you've fallen prey to it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Belfrager and any other Catholics: Pope Francis has no -I repeat, NO- authority to pronounce upon science or economics... And he certainly must know this!
I won't pronounce him the Anti-Christ; I just call him a stupid man, called to a position he's incapable of filling with both dignity and sincerity. (One or the other has to give...) He's a man of his times, and -certainly- a man of his place.
If God wants us to know the niceties of climate science, he'd likely choose a better vessel. (Perhaps, a scientist whose work is unassailable?! :) )
(I miss Benedict... But I understand his decision to step down.)
----------------------------------------------
BTW, Sang: Indeed, "quit so"! You've neither the expertise nor the intellectual prowess to continue... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-12, 09:46:16
@Belfrager and any other Catholics: Pope Francis has no -I repeat, NO- authority to pronounce upon science or economics... And he certainly must know this!

The Pope has the authority to speak about whatever he desires, that's a fact that you are going to learn either you like it or not.
Even much more interesting, he has the authority for forcing you to change the way he desires, either you like it or not, as you're going to state in no much time.
Get used.

By the way, do I need to post a second time a list or are you going to stop your wanna be pseudo scientific circus?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-12, 11:15:56
So---- you really think the Pope has power to force me-- and Oakdale or anybody else for that matter--  to think the "right" way about AGW? Hmmmmmm..... I have a surprise for him- (and you, Bel):

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Flotrminecraftmod%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbc%2FYou-have-no-power-here.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20150302185845&hash=6a45c5eb5dea28b8c507252d1e80ce68" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/lotrminecraftmod/images/b/bc/You-have-no-power-here.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150302185845)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-12, 12:35:55
So---- you really think the Pope has power to force me-- and Oakdale or anybody else for that matter--  to think the "right" way about AGW?

He doesn't bothers with you, he forces your entire country to change...

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJQEEQ1h.png&hash=1fab5544c164120997a390527ab70a2c" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/JQEEQ1h.png)

Only the elites matters for conducting change. You'll simply follow, no option.

---------------------

This is not a discussion about if climate change exists or not, it's a discussion about your repeated and insistent irresponsibility about it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-12, 13:15:25
Bull$#(). The Pope had ONE chance to govern this country. That was when John Kennedy (a Roman Catholic) got elected.

Heck, he didn't even have much of a chance then. The only way JFK could get elected was to assuage fears that an RC president wouldn't secretly allow the Pope to really govern the country. That's a large part of where our present separation of church and state comes from today. The Pope can say what he likes--- the government will respectfully listen--- then go on with the affairs of government as if the Pope had never spoken.

The rest of our presidents-- from George Washington to Obama-- have been some form of Protestant, and if the Pope wants to think he can give any of them orders--- good luck with that. Heck, a lot of our recent presidents don't even seem to listen to their own denominations much, still less the Pope.

Right now, the only reason you have the illusion-- that's all that it is-- that Obama is paying attention to the Pope is that they just happen to be on the same page regarding AGW. Get  Republican in next time--- or even some Democrats who aren't quite so "party line", and see how well they follow Papal dictates.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-12, 14:20:23
The Pope can say what he likes--- the government will respectfully listen--- then go on with the affairs of government as if the Pope had never spoken.

Holy ignorance...
Read again the Papal document. It was not written for you to discuss it but to announce you how things will be.
By the way, he's going to your pretty land this year, you'll have the chance to witness the apotheosis. You can sum 2+2, right? :)

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-12, 15:13:01
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Are you SERIOUS? Are you really under such delusion that you think all the Pope has to do is issue a decree and the US will unquestioningly follow it because the Pope said so?

Look, these days the government doesn't even follow the Word of God much, and you think that the Pope----

BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! (Spends twenty minutes pounding on floor, laughing.) Man, this is too good. Stand-up comedians can't come up with something like that, so if you ever get tired of subsistence farming you have a brilliant career ahead of you.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-12, 16:49:23
Stand-up comedians can't come up with something like that, so if you ever get tired of subsistence farming you have a brilliant career ahead of you.

I'm a man of many talents.

You'll notice the change, I don't need to remember you how minor and isolated your's and Oakdale's voices are already in the US. You are the retrograde burden that drafts the US backwards and will inevitability doom it's aspirations to be someone at the international scale. A good thing for the rest of the world, by the way.
Unfortunately Chinese are already arriving to substitute you, those are the real problem. Do as your president Obama tells you and get out of the way.

The world needs to prepare to resist the Chinese and can't waste more time with the US hypocrisy in this matter.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-12, 17:13:46
If you don't know when they're "right" it doesn't matter! Put succinctly: In science, why it's right matters a great deal -- at least in some disciplines...
Some people (including so-called scientists) exempt climatology. (Why?)

What I'm looking for is evidence against AGW that can at least withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist. There was the claim that global temperatures stop increasing in 1998. No, they didn't. There was the claim that yes, the climate was changing but it was due to the sun's cycles. Then it turned out the math was wrong on that study. Ridiculously so.   The issue isn't a scientific one, but a partisan one with the GOP politicians being paid big bucks to lie through their teeth. So where is the evidence to prove this wrong?
It's approaching 20 years that there's been no appreciable "rise" in temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 has increased unabated! Explain that.
But I'd ask you to do so scientifically, not rhetorically.

And who told you this nonsense? But "appreciable" is a vague term. What's appreciable for you might not be for me and vice/versa. Therefore, adjective is meaningless. For the purposes of clarity, I work with absolutes.

(https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T)
As you can see, the trend is still upward. Noting the rise is the most abundant greenhouse house and that it's acting in the expected fashion is quite reasonable. At the most basic level, it's common sense backed up by data. So the explanation you're asking for is that the entire premise of your question is incorrect.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-13, 20:24:29
Sang, it's common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones... :) (But I will agree that you deal in absolutes! The Party Line is always the party line. And if it changes tomorrow so will you. :) )

@Belfrager: The Pope can go pee up a rope! If he actually thinks he has some authority on this matter -granted by God?- he's an apostate... I should think you'd find that a sad (and perhaps dangerous) circumstance...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-13, 20:43:44

Sang, it's common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones... :) (But I will agree that you deal in absolutes! The Party Line is always the party line. And if it changes tomorrow so will you. :) )

@Belfrager: The Pope can go pee up a rope! If he actually thinks he has some authority on this matter -granted by God?- he's an apostate... I should think you'd find that a sad (and perhaps dangerous) circumstance...


Gotta say something about that bolded: Sooner or later someone will bring up that scientific test where a guy dropped two cannonballs from the Tower of Pisa. Of course both balls landed at the same time, even though one was significantly lighter than the other. Cannon balls are round, and the distance was relatively short.

Drop a can of soup and a piece of paper from the side of the Grand Canyon. You know the paper isn't going to land first, so--- heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones because air resistance slows the lighter object more. Further, you can scientifically prove that the park police frown on littering---..
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-14, 02:00:07
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-15, 04:15:14
Sooner or later someone will bring up that scientific test where a guy dropped two cannonballs from the Tower of Pisa
And, if someone does, someone else will likely give links documenting the actual experiments that fellow performed!
Just because grammar-school children are told stories doesn't mean we all should accept Just So stories...
Quote from: Midnight Raccoon link=topic=109.msg46045#msg46045 date=1442049226[...
"appreciable" is a vague term. What's appreciable for you might not be for me and vice/versa. Therefore, adjective is meaningless. For the purposes of clarity, I work with absolutes.
Then please explain to me (and who ever others might be interested...) how climatologists take the temperature of the Earth to a tenth of a degree accuracy? :)

I appreciate your problem: Both science and language are sometimes difficult. You find "appreciable" to be a vague term; I find your use of "absolutes" to be vague... You think mere correlation to be an acceptable substitute for causation, and you're willing to ignore contrary evidence -- for the sake of your pretty charts -- and your political aims. I think science will continue, despite your imprecations. The Pope's also.

@Belfrager: If you think the Pope's authority is efficacious, how do you explain the world's acceptance of abortion-on-demand? :(
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-15, 09:25:04
hen please explain to me (and who ever others might be interested...) how climatologists take the temperature of the Earth to a tenth of a degree accuracy?
How can the doctor tell your body temperature within that degree of accuracy? :p Also, it's an average degree of variance from the average as reported from thousands of stations across the global. This means the surprise would be that the result came out a whole number.

You think mere correlation to be an acceptable substitute for causation, and you're willing to ignore contrary evidence -- for the sake of your pretty charts -- and your political aims. I think science will continue, despite your imprecations.

No, I don't. Let's step out of climatology for just a moment. When hundreds of a scientists in their given field across the globe all come with the same result, even using different methodologies, there might be something to the hypothesis or theory. Meanwhile, as I've said, no alternative hypothesis has held up under the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

Deniers have tried to say it's the sun that caused global warming.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fgraphics%2FSolar_vs_temp_500.jpg&hash=f723ddd0b3925e6642ad0964669370fa" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg)

As you can see, solar activity has actually degree decreased even as the Earth's average temperature increased.

There was also that outright lie that global warming stopped in 1998. Graphics I've already presented disprove that.

Some people point the medieval warm period.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc1%2F2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png&hash=7258de9f0595509e6829e0b27f0a34d7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

That was caused by solar activity. You'll note the temperature anomaly for the current warming trend is greater than in that time period.

I'm not a poor dazed islander confused by cargo planes. If anyone has a cargo cult syndrome, it's the deniers being deceived by their politically motivated articles and blogs that in some case outright lie.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-15, 11:24:33
Does this discussion need to continue? If everybody who dares to disagree with you is ignorant, a liar and probably paid by certain cartels (which cartels depends on which side you're on and who is disagreeing with you) then any semblance of intelligent conversation is at an end. It quickly degenerates into a name-calling contest.

I know that I've been openly accused at one time or another of taking money from Big Oil--- which is kinda funny because, if anything, it seems that I pay enough and to spare for gasoline and oil---- and I know that I've seen folk on the other side openly accused of taking money from the Green cartels-- up to and including getting pay from Al Gore to say things. Truth--- most of the people accused of taking money have never taken a dime-- or been offered a dime-- by the big outfits that are supposedly paying for all of this.

Slow down and take a few breaths. Otherwise, the name-calling only makes the person calling names look like a buffoon.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-09-15, 13:04:56
This discussion has been about evaluating the intellect of the contenders, or about the amount of years spent in elementary school by each of them.
It could be - and should be - about whether the amount of current evidences is enough to establish causation in the correlation. This evaluation seems quite subjective so far.
Is there anything objective in that direction?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-15, 20:19:41
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fglobalwarmingsolved.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FMann_hockeystick-300x217.png&hash=a7c50c1346e8fd2a37c38483c86822b3" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Mann_hockeystick-300x217.png)(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fglobalwarmingsolved.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Foriginal_hockeysticks1-300x156.jpg&hash=34cdd641c9454cc1311f46be4dbd585a" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/original_hockeysticks1-300x156.jpg)(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fglobalwarmingsolved.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fwarm_CWP1-300x157.jpg&hash=0b0de6df1fb00f1a4410623d10bf0538" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/warm_CWP1-300x157.jpg)(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fglobalwarmingsolved.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fwarm_MWP1-300x155.jpg&hash=9020d80ef5353f04ab5cc7703f6ba3bb" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/warm_MWP1-300x155.jpg)
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-global-temperature-changes-of-the-last-millennium/ (http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-global-temperature-changes-of-the-last-millennium/)

Graphs are fun. But there's no way you can be that accurate going back centuries... Therefore, there's graphs to support any point you want. May as well go to an island a worship airplanes if you wanna pick one and say it proves anything.

Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet. We should limit the release of gases and stop burning the forests. That just makes sense. Changing the composition of the atmosphere does affect climate, ice cores can show that. But any damage done can be undone. This conversation gets old just watching people go at each other over nothing. Nothing meaningful has been said or proved or even hinted at.  
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-16, 03:19:46
Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet.

I'm not saying we will. The planet finds itself a new equilibrium everytime. Species that are unable to adapt to it die off. Given that humanity is a technological species, it's unlikely it will cause it's own extinction through climate change. However, it will make conditions less ideal for human life.
We should limit the release of gases and stop burning the forests. That just makes sense.

At the end of the day, that's all any sensible is saying. In addition, some people like myself note there are new economic opportunities to be had in switching to technologies that reduce emissions.

Now about that link. Yes, obviously there can be flaws in proxies. However, there's little serious scientific doubt that current warming trend is man made. Every climate change event has a cause. It's just that this time the cause is humanity and its emissions.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-16, 04:46:34
This discussion [...] could be - and should be - about whether the amount of current evidences is enough to establish causation in the correlation. This evaluation seems quite subjective so far.
Is there anything objective in that direction?
I'd pose a question:
Might it be that what most call, in reference to trends, "noise" is actually all that there really is, when we talk about "climate"?

More simply: On what basis do we presume a climate -- as opposed to weather?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-16, 06:41:53

Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet. We should limit the release of gases and stop burning the forests. That just makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense to stop burning the forests. But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet? What is the reason why it makes sense to stop burning the forests?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-16, 07:35:35
In what way does it make sense to burn the forest? Slash and burn agriculture is very inefficient and depletes the soil and renders it useless for future crops. So it would be a boon to humanity to stop the practice. In addition, the trees reduce soil erosion, supply oxygen and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Asking why we shouldn't burn the forests is absurd.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-16, 16:14:39
However, it will make conditions less ideal for human life.

Which sadly may be the circumstance needed to stop our bad habits. But it can also be what drives the development of the technology needed to actually control this planet and maybe others. If I have to pick a side, I'm in it for the species not the planet... But since we need the planet to be with in a range of habitability to support us all - I'm for that.

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?

:rolleyes: I'm not going to explain the difference between damage and destroy to you. (Or planet and ecosystem for that matter.)*

If you wanna be some kind of boulder in the river conversations are just gonna flow around you. If you can't or won't understand what I mean by that - that's the problem. If you do, then good job. Do that more often.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-19, 12:42:19
Sooner or later the ultimate evidence will need to be realized, there's simply too much people in the world, waisting too much resources at a too much rapid pace. The world is not elastic forever, it breaks.
Fixing it after broken would be the most painful and hardest thing mankind has ever tried and hardly even possible.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-20, 20:18:28

Sooner or later the ultimate evidence will need to be realized, there's simply too much people in the world, waisting too much resources at a too much rapid pace. The world is not elastic forever, it breaks.
Fixing it after broken would be the most painful and hardest thing mankind has ever tried and hardly even possible.


Who makes the choice in who lives or dies? You? By the standards you're suggesting, Hitler had the right idea. So did Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Sorry about calling a spade a bloody shovel, but every time I see the argument that there's too many people, the person suggesting thinning the herd never, ever suggests that the thinning should start with themselves (leading by example).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-20, 20:21:34
Every now and then something crosses my transom that makes me wonder if we're dealing with science--- or religion. Specifically, the kind of religion that burns heretics at the stake. The link below, which describes a group of warmist scientists who want to have all skeptics arrested and tried under the RICO act, is such an item that makes you wonder.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/some_scientists_want_to_prosecute_global_warming_skeptics_under_the_rico_act.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/some_scientists_want_to_prosecute_global_warming_skeptics_under_the_rico_act.html)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-20, 21:27:14
Quote
"Writing in The New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with initiating a public outcry over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties." -wiki


Randomly useless thing to be known for. Scanning over the headlines, it's not worth any attention.

No where in the actual letter (http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf) did they call for arrests.

Quote
[..]
The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.
A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry
from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in
the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented
in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped[..]
(emphasis is mine, of course)


I even went as far as to read some of the papers written by the signers of the letter. Most i read seem to have opinions I agree with that are not alarmist views. 

Quote from:  one at random
The only quantitative for predicting future climate are climate models which include as their central components atmospheric and oceanic General Circulation Models. However, these models involve many assumptions and approximations that are not always appreciated when interpreting their results. -  Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO Source   (https://books.google.com/books?id=EDClFW7JWrQC&pg=PR24&lpg=PR24&dq=Kevin+Trenberth,+National+Center+for+Atmospheric+Research,+Boulder,+CO&source=bl&ots=Vh3XirNoRt&sig=oXdACthdk6jKLqVDeF7zIRPmol0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCGoVChMI8teIhsKGyAIVRBo-Ch1zyAFr#v=onepage&q=Kevin%20Trenberth%2C%20National%20Center%20for%20Atmospheric%20Research%2C%20Boulder%2C%20CO&f=true)


For my part. When you start taking political rhetoric at face value you are part of the problem.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-21, 02:33:57
When you start taking political rhetoric at face value you are part of the problem.
When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric...

Shouldn't we consider a RICO investigation of the scientists and organizations promoting AGW/Climate Change, for their bizarre calls for de-industrialization and population culling? :) No conservative (or sane conservationist...) would ever ask for such. But so-called environmentalists do, frequently, urge governments to institute a "back to the Stone Age" agenda; and -at the same time- ask for more government funds!
True, the letter didn't out-right call for arrests... But that often happens, when there's no evidence of a crime or malfeasance: A "prosecutor" can apply considerable intimidation. Well, if he's properly motivated.
(Sometimes, properly motivated "prosecutors" end up behind bars, themselves! Be careful what you wish for: You might get it!)

BTW: No one has answered my question (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg46171#msg46171)! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 02:50:27
When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric...


You have got to stop watching Fox News. Seriously, it's for your own good. ;)

And no. When you try to polarize every topic that's just how it seems.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-21, 03:35:07
I'm not going to explain the difference between damage and destroy to you. (Or planet and ecosystem for that matter.)*

If you wanna be some kind of boulder in the river conversations are just gonna flow around you. If you can't or won't understand what I mean by that - that's the problem. If you do, then good job. Do that more often.

Pardon me for not having grown up in a monoculture where all concepts have been gleichgeschalten so that everybody automatically understands everything the same way. Where I grew up, you either define your terms or your talk is just like a buzzing of the flies.

Edit: You may choose your wordings carefully and know very well what you are talking about and what you mean, but from the point of view of other people, it all remains to be verified.

Sorry about calling a spade a bloody shovel, but every time I see the argument that there's too many people, the person suggesting thinning the herd never, ever suggests that the thinning should start with themselves (leading by example).

Check up ecofascist Pentti Linkola in another thread. He is leading by example, but of course nobody follows such examples.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-21, 05:52:51
Who makes the choice in who lives or dies? You? By the standards you're suggesting, Hitler had the right idea. So did Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Very nice, you defend the causes of the problem and then jump as a humanist super hero shocked with its consequences....
Did I said anything about massive killings? stop putting words in my mouth I haven't said, second time.

Environmental and climatic problems are caused by a non sustainable model of development. It could be done with a small percentage of world's population but never with everybody, simple as that.
Either one changes the model or reduces the number of people using it. The bigger the number of world's population the more delicate and sensitive the problem will be.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 07:52:12
Pardon me for not having grown up in a monoculture where all concepts have been gleichgeschalten in the minds of people so that everybody automatically understands everything the same way.

Would you please explain this to the little Indian man down at the corner market? I'm tired of asking for a pack of cigarettes too and him handing me two packs.
Where I grew up, you either define your terms or your talk is just like a buzzing of the flies.

They told me to go get a dictionary. It was four miles away at the library. Uphill both ways (there and back to be clear) - in eight inches of snow.

Of course it's easier nowadays. I looked up and translated "gleichgeschalten" in seconds. But then I am willing to try to understand.

Now that we've both wasted more words I guess we can argue semantics. You really really seem to want to and it's better than whatever that was...

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?


There's so many variables involved that it's best to proceed mindful of what we don't know. This isn't a "if not this then that" scenario.

Using destroy is a political exaggeration. Nothing to get stuck on but I can do better in that regard at least...

There's nothing to suggest that the obvious change we can cause will be a bad thing. Humans were born from climate change.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-21, 09:51:54

Would you please explain this to the little Indian man down at the corner market? I'm tired of asking for a pack of cigarettes too and him handing me two packs.

You think he is doing something wrong? Communication is a two-way traffic. Try asking for a pack of cigarettes, not for "too".

Salespeople and accountants have a general tendency to think in terms of numbers and item lists, and they have little clue of other aspects of language. This problem is exponentially exacerbated when the salespeople are foreigners.


Of course it's easier nowadays. I looked up and translated "gleichgeschalten" in seconds. But then I am willing to try to understand.

So you could understand better, I was referring to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung). I only know of Russian direct equivalent, not English.

In my experience, there seems to be a curious inverse relation between freedom of speech and capacity of independent thinking. Suppression of free speech tends to motivate people to consider the entire array of possible meanings and associations in what's read or heard. It encourages independent thinking, reading between the lines, and dissent. Of course, "reading between the lines" is immediately next to "reading into the text" and I must apologise for my overinterpretations.

In turn, societies with plenty of free speech breed superficiality, relativism, or formalism. It is a commendable achievement when one manages to maintain personal integrity in such an environment.


But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?


There's so many variables involved that it's best to proceed mindful of what we don't know. This isn't a "if not this then that" scenario.

Using destroy is a political exaggeration. Nothing to get stuck on but I can do better in that regard at least...

There's nothing to suggest that the obvious change we can cause will be a bad thing. Humans were born from climate change.

Remember, I was responding to these words, "Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet." Your choice of words, not mine. Without further context, it's a bit too easy to disagree, because industrial wasteland is an area on the planet where life has been destroyed and it's obvious to extrapolate from this when industry is growing globally. But when you add that you agree that mankind has a major impact on the ecosystem, I can see your full meaning - in your opinion, ecological concerns are real, but not too urgent. Fair enough.

This topic is of course very complex. An effective solution can only be political, because the solution entails moderation of industry, but since politics is corrupted by corporate industry, it quite likely won't happen in an orderly manner. Anyway, it does no good to politicise the scientific record. The scientific record can stand by itself. When climatology is labelled a Commie cult of environmentalists, there's evidently no willingness to consider the scientific record rationally, to see where the facts are pointing to, analytically apart from what to do about the facts.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-21, 10:27:26
Sorry about calling a spade a bloody shovel, but every time I see the argument that there's too many people, the person suggesting thinning the herd never, ever suggests that the thinning should start with themselves (leading by example).

"Thinning the herd" is something you would sensibly do by restricting child births like in China, not by actually killing people, except I think it's better to e.g. promote social welfare policies that make people not need or want to have as many children.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-21, 15:25:57
When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric...

You mean liken when GOP politicians take money from ExxonMobile  (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers) and "skeptical" sites and poor excuses for scientists do the same do the same? (9 out of 10 of them)  (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links) :) Now invoking RICO on this issue is going too far and I seriously doubt that Obama will pursue this infringement of First Amendment rights, despite the fact that  by 1977  (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change) Exxon knew that its products would cause climate change. (remember that by natural cycles, we should actually be in a cooling trend)
But so-called environmentalists do, frequently, urge governments to institute a "back to the Stone Age" agenda; and -at the same time- ask for more government funds!

Who?  How many? What percentage does that amount to? You have screwballs in every movement.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 16:43:13
You think he is doing something wrong?

No. A joke directed at your monoculture jab.
Communication is a two-way traffic.

Yes. That's what I am saying. If you wanna say it too/also/as well that's fine.
Try asking for a pack of cigarettes, not for "too".

I've got this. Don't worry yourself.
Salespeople and accountants have a general tendency to think in terms of numbers and item lists, and they have little clue of other aspects of language. This problem is exponentially exacerbated when the salespeople are foreigners.

Ugh!
So you could understand better, I was referring to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung). I only know of Russian direct equivalent, not English.

I understood fine when I looked it up, thx.
In my experience, there seems to be a curious inverse relation between freedom of speech and capacity of independent thinking. Suppression of free speech tends to motivate people to consider the entire array of possible meanings and associations in what's read or heard. It encourages independent thinking, reading between the lines, and dissent. Of course, "reading between the lines" is immediately next to "reading into the text" and I must apologise for my overinterpretations.

No you seem to get it. You just present the point as if you are telling me what it is when you get it. You may think me and others are idiots and your culture has somehow produced superior thinking but you're wrong. From where I'm sitting you're just another human. 

Remember, I was responding to these words, "Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet."

Words followed and preceded that. That's not the only thing I've said so there was context for a critical thinker to find.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-21, 16:49:07
You may think me and others are idiots and your culture has somehow produced superior thinking but you're wrong. From where I'm sitting you're just another human.

Thanks for making your perspective clear.

From my point of view, everybody else hopefully represents a world view worth investigating. There's no "just another" about it. My hope is often frustrated. My apologies.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 18:22:57

You may think me and others are idiots and your culture has somehow produced superior thinking but you're wrong. From where I'm sitting you're just another human.

Thanks for making your perspective clear.

From my point of view, everybody else hopefully represents a world view worth investigating. There's no "just another" about it. My hope is often frustrated. My apologies.


You see - a very human reaction. But it's not based on thoughtfulness. Your frustration is your own fault. Though, I doubt it exists. That was for dramatic purposes.

What you usually try to do is dissect other views and convolute terminology... Presented in a condescending tone that suggests others are fools because you don't understand. It's very human to not want to admit you're wrong and try to save face by hiding behind obscure meaning. Just as it's human to think you are special.

I am not going to pretend you were asking for any kind of clarity though. 
But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?


Pretty sure I'm only in this conversation over a point about polarizing opinions. This quote is a short-sided play [on words]* not an attempt at understanding. A further point I'd make is that polarization of any topic leads to opposition bias. You literally can argue the other side of something because you are against someone else not because it's a valid position.

We are back to square one. If you wanna drop the bullshit we can continue back on topic [That's on both our parts]*.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-21, 19:51:25

When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric...

You mean liken when GOP politicians take money from ExxonMobile  (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers) and "skeptical" sites and poor excuses for scientists do the same do the same? (9 out of 10 of them)  (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links) :) Now invoking RICO on this issue is going too far and I seriously doubt that Obama will pursue this infringement of First Amendment rights, despite the fact that  by 1977  (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change) Exxon knew that its products would cause climate change. (remember that by natural cycles, we should actually be in a cooling trend)
But so-called environmentalists do, frequently, urge governments to institute a "back to the Stone Age" agenda; and -at the same time- ask for more government funds!

Who?  How many? What percentage does that amount to? You have screwballs in every movement.


Midnight, I gotta ask: Do you believe that the scientists who disagree with you on this subject only do so because they're taking money from the oil companies? Just for a moment, consider--- could it be possible that their observations just don't match the "consensus" line and they're saying so?

I say again--- if everybody who dares to disagree with "you" (in quotation marks because now this applies to everybody, myself included) is ignorant, in cahoots with the cartels or otherwise needs to shut up---- then this discussion ceases to have useful purpose. It is no longer about science, but about intolerant religious views. It may need to be shut down.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 20:44:28
It may need to be shut down.

Nah. Let it ride. Definitively a microcosm of what this topic is.

Main problem is I can agree with points from them all; I'd just add a big long "buuuuuuuuut..." to most of it. That's not the conversation that "they" want to have.  
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-21, 20:53:25
Pretty good job of psychoanalysing my internet persona. Only a few points to clarify.


Your frustration is your own fault. Though, I doubt it exists. That was for dramatic purposes.

So, which way is it? Do I have frustration or not? Is it my own fault or not?


What you usually try to do is dissect other views and convolute terminology... Presented in a condescending tone that suggests others are fools because you don't understand.

Here the same thing. Is it really so that I don't understand? What specifically do I not understand?


It's very human to not want to admit you're wrong ...

It's common for those who don't care about truth. There are a few people here open about the fact that they don't care about truth, such as Oakdale (wow, I found a positive thing to say about him!), whereas the majority here avoids the word "truth" altogether, for fear of giving it ontological status.

Meh. Long story short, what was I wrong about? Come on, I am eager to admit it!


Pretty sure I'm only in this conversation over a point about polarizing opinions. This quote is a short-sided play [on words]* not an attempt at understanding. A further point I'd make is that polarization of any topic leads to opposition bias. You literally can argue the other side of something because you are against someone else not because it's a valid position.

We are back to square one. If you wanna drop the bullshit we can continue back on topic [That's on both our parts]*.

You overwhelmingly enjoy habitual chit-chat on safe topics for pastime, but always in the back of your mind you are silently irritated by some attitudes. There's a certain limit to what you call condescending tone, and when you perceive that the cup is full, you give expression to your righteous indignation and expose the offender for the hypocrite he is. (If you forgive my humble attempt to return the favour of psychoanalysis :) )

Now, I agree with you that deliberate polarising of opinions is an offence. I also agree that hypocrites deserve the emotionally painful lessons they get. However, I make a distinction between opinion and fact. Concerning facts, one is either right or wrong, and those who are wrong deserve to know it. It's wrong in principle to dispute or deny facts. It's intellectual dishonesty and there's no opinion or second thought about it.

It's not a matter of opinion whether economy has priority over ecology or the other way round. It's a matter of fact. It's a simple thought exercise:

1. Have ecology and economy side by side.
2. Take economy away, while ecology remains. Is life still possible or not?
3. Take ecology away. Can economy remain?

In the pointed sense, this is the choice we are facing, certainly in our post-nuclear hyperindustrial global civilisation. The variables in the equation may allow for some shapes of opinion, but not the principle. And I repeat, this is the issue in the pointed sense. (Not sure if "in the pointed sense" is understandable English to you, but I know what I mean and I'm always okay with what I mean. So there.)
 
All in all, thanks for a refreshing intermission.




Main problem is I can agree with points from them all; I'd just add a big long "buuuuuuuuut..." to most of it. That's not the conversation that "they" want to have.

Try first. Conclude later.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 21:36:58
Fine. Let's get the B.S. out of the way then:
So, which way is it? Do I have frustration or not? Is it my own fault or not?

If you did then it would be. otherwise it's as I said.

There's no point in trying to show certainty with a psychoanalysis. People distance themselves from it regardless. It's also very human to wanna make someone else look wrong.
internet persona.

See.
Meh. Long story short, what was I wrong about? Come on, I am eager to admit it!

In this particular case.. That you were in fact being intentionally obtuse.
You overwhelmingly enjoy habitual chit-chat on safe topics for pastime, but always in the back of your mind you are silently irritated by some attitudes. There's a certain limit to what you call condescending tone, and when you perceive that the cup is full, you give expression to your righteous indignation and expose the offender for the hypocrite he is. (If you forgive my humble attempt to return the favour of psychoanalysis  :)  )

Fair assessment. Try to allow variances in my moods and that you probably see more of my satirical or sarcastic side here. In fairness: I've been doing this a while now. I used to take a more serious approach. [May be I'll come back to that one day.]*

Try first. Conclude later.

I keep coming close. But you're right I get irritated - just not silently. The idea of pushing a 1000lbs of B.S. uphill and over the cliff just seems like too much work... For now.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-21, 21:51:06
It's not a matter of opinion whether economy has priority over ecology or the other way round. It's a matter of fact. It's a simple thought exercise:

1. Have ecology and economy side by side.
2. Take economy away, while ecology remains. Is life still possible or not?
3. Take ecology away. Can economy remain?
Such simplistic thinking is the main reason some societies require a Ministry of Truth... Reification run rampant!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-21, 22:11:58

Meh. Long story short, what was I wrong about? Come on, I am eager to admit it!

In this particular case.. That you were in fact being intentionally obtuse.

Hey, this question was rather important to me. I hoped you would correct me concerning some fact. Instead, you are just annoyed by my attitude. What an anticlimax.


Such simplistic thinking is the main reason some societies require a Ministry of Truth... Reification run rampant!

Some day when I feel like talking to you, I might explain what "in the pointed sense" means. If I explained it today, it would make you look simplistic. In the previous post I said something positive about you and I don't want to ruin it so soon.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-21, 23:01:37
Midnight, I gotta ask: Do you believe that the scientists who disagree with you on this subject only do so because they're taking money from the oil companies?

The numbers in the field that disagree on the basic premise that humans are altering the climate are so low that they very well could be. We're talking ninety-seven percent agreement. And the funny thing is that greater the expertise in the area, as demonstrated by education level and the relevance to the subject of the and number peer reviewed publications the climatologist appears in, the greater percent that agree. If you stick to "scientist" , regardless of field and level of expertise, I believe the agreement level falls into the high 80 percent range. I don't have time right now to dredge the survey back up. The point scientific debate on this is over. Unfortunately, many people have been duped into thinking the issue is scientifically controversial.
I say again--- if everybody who dares to disagree with "you" (in quotation marks because now this applies to everybody, myself included) is ignorant
Everybody on the planet is ignorant about something. Academically, my fields are sociology,psychology and marketing. Ask me about astrophysics and I have no idea besides what I've been about to catch on a a documentary that I watched on Netflix. Don't take it so personally.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-21, 23:14:13
Such simplistic thinking is the main reason some societies require a Ministry of Truth... Reification run rampant!

A Ministry of Truth might well be correct on some issues. In fact, it's well known the most effective propaganda is truth mixed with lies - ie allowing the audience to fall into the fallacy of assuming that because some propaganda is correct all of it must be. That said, this is not 1984. You can question the science behind AGW without the helicopter or drone appearing outside your window. Unfortunately, the skeptics have failed to provide evidence that can withstand peer review. Perhaps that's why we end up with references to real and fictional totalitarian regimes in light of actual contrary data ;)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-22, 06:13:41
If anyone is actually interested, here's the link (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-final.pdf) to a new book (I got from ClimateAudit, which got it from Climate Etc. ...). I haven't read it yet; just down-loaded it, to see that the link worked.
Anyone willing to share the experience of reading it, here? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-23, 03:43:18
It doesn't take long before we encounter information that's objectively incorrect. On page 35, there's the claim global stopped in 1998. If you believe humans have been impacting the planet or not, this is non-factual. There he said/she said, Democrats said/Republicans said, Protestants said/Catholics said, etc. There's also times when the claims repeated by one side are objectively and demonstrably wrong.

Before Mjmsprt starts in that I'm calling the author a liar, it should be noted that Alan Longhurst is a biological oceanographer. It wouldn't be surprising if a climatologist made a mistake while trying to classify a newly discovered species of fish, would it? ;) This is part of what I said about the greater the expertise in climatology, the greater the agreement that humans are the main source behind the current warming trend.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-23, 06:32:07
It doesn't take long before we encounter information that's objectively incorrect. On page 35, there's the claim global stopped in 1998.
I have to assume you didn't read through to page 35, Sang. But, since others will give you the benefit of the doubt (...pun intended!), I'd ask that you source your contention.

(BTW: The paper "Where do winds come from?" is free to download at this link (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf)... I'm looking forward to reading it! Are you? :) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An aside (which I'd whisper, had this forum had the functionality): I think I now know why you so dislike PDFs and prefer Word documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relevant portion of page 35 is the first paragraph:
Quote
The role played by vulcanism and sulphur dioxide in controlling the global [climate] is not much discussed by AR5 although this Assessment does note that volcanic eruptions are "the dominant cause of the externally-forced climate change on the annual to multi-decadal time scales", but discussion is anecdotal and primarily concerned with the consequences of recent and very large events. In the recent literature, too, emphasis has been placed on the cooling effect of volcanic dust veils perhaps because [the are] stratospheric warming events due to three explosive volcanic eruptions are prominent in radio-sonde and satellite data in the decades of the 20th century and because a general stratospheric cooling trend ceased at the same time as the interruption of tropospheric warming after 1998.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-23, 07:16:31
This selection:

Quote
But a more! complex! explanation for the observed lack of surface warming
after 1998 is that!of Kaufmannand others, who invoke declining irradiance at the end
of an 11Ayear solar cycle..
There's actually more to it than that. Unfortunately many bugs occurred when I was trying to copy/paste it for you and I have work to do and don't have a couple cleaning up the text for you. The author is correct when he points out that conditions are likely more complex than we realize. However, is assertion that there's a lack of of surface warming on the planet is inaccurate. The declining irradiance from the sun is, and what could well be what's saving from greater warming for now. I even found a article that claims we could be heading into another little ice age because of solar activity; but we're still awaiting peer review of that hypothesis and how the interaction with greenhouse emissions will play out. It should be interesting to see if the sun's current cycle completely overrides AGW. Despite mjmsprt's assertions, I am not religious on the subject.

Even if we simply have short term AGW, followed by a natural cooling trend, it's still time to consider graduating from fossils fuels. Bring down the cost of batteries to make at least hybrid cars the normal and enjoy the economic benefits of a new, greener, industrial revolution (quite the opposite of deindustrializing and reverting to living in caves.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-23, 07:48:06
Unfortunately many bugs occurred when I was trying to copy/paste it for you [...]
Not to worry! When I tried to "copy & paste" what I posted, I quickly gave up that tack. I can read and type... (And copy edit! :) )
[The author's] assertion that there's a lack of of surface warming on the planet is inaccurate.
(Correction, please: the data's assertion; the various papers I've read that try to "explain away" the failure of model predictions are -at this point- lame!) What data set shows increasing rates of surface warming? (...Because, if we're racing towards a cusp of a climate catastrophe -a "tipping point- one would like to know!) So, please, mention where I can find the raw data and whatever code and supplemental material provided: I'm not so trusting as you -- there's no one who's word I'd take, at this point.)
Even if we simply have short term AGW, followed by a natural cooling trend, it's still time to consider graduating from fossils fuels. Bring down the cost of batteries to make at least hybrid cars the normal and enjoy the economic benefits of a new, greener, industrial revolution (quite the opposite of deindustrializing and reverting to living in caves.)
I've heard this sort of argument from you many times before...
By all means, invent the technologies you want, create the infrastructure to support them and become "filthy" rich! (I'll applaud you. Heck, I'll use them myself. I, too, like this planet!) But disabuse yourself of the notion that such things happen, on command.

Or keep voting Democrat... :) (Shit! Or Republican...) We do need a new "take" on politics. :(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said "it's still time to consider graduating from fossils fuels"... If all you want is a pat on the head and a diploma! :) But, seriously, have you never met anyone who thought you should "graduate" from life?
Why do you think yourself qualified to determine how most of the world's economy should be structured and run?
(Are you going to support sub-Saharan African populations? Indian? Chinese? No. You're going to assume the mantle of King of the World -- and parade around naked, until some peasant child cries "Look!"
But you won't be embarrassed, will you? :) Nope! And, then, friend, you'll be mighty-glad for "Global Warming"! :) )
I reiterate my challenge: Do the work, or finance it, yourself! Otherwise, you're just looking for converts to your bizarre ideology -- much as mjm surmised...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-23, 10:34:44

Unfortunately many bugs occurred when I was trying to copy/paste it for you [...]
Not to worry! When I tried to "copy & paste" what I posted, I quickly gave up that tack.

I can copy&paste easily. Here's a quote I grabbed with Qpdfview, my fav PDF viewer,

Quote from: Alan Longhurst, Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science

(iii) Consequences of anthropogenic modification of the environment: this effect will be greatest where human populations are most crowded or where deforestation, intensive agriculture, industrial or petrochemical activities and simple occupation of space by buildings will modify regional climates more radically than any effect of anthropogenic CO2. It is not our motor cars that are causing rapid warming in eastern Amazonia and many other regions, but the intensive ploughing of cleared forest regions for - of all things - growing biofuel-­‐ producing plants for the same vehicles. These effects are easier to identify in the global surface air temperature data than any global effect of CO2 to which all warming is habitually attributed.

So, here's a point about misattributing causes. Not that there's no warming, but that there are other causes to it. The conclusion: Warming is there alright, and it obviously has its causes, attributable or not.



I find all this discussion off target because of a few important reasons.

1. It's not about warming. Not for me anyway. I don't care how warm the environment is. I care how livable it is, how clean and fertile it is, how well it sustains life and continues to do so. IPCC and the scientific consensus may have determined that warming is somehow a reliable measure of the ecological quality of environment - that's their business. For me only the ecological quality matters.

It's easy for AGW denialists to take this warming and attack its measurements and in so doing forget the actual topic. They should understand that there is a real reason why this discussion is taking place. Ecological catastrophies are not unheard of. With expanding industry, the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. IPCC may have stupidly focused on warming and politicians may talk about "climate change", but the topic is how human activity affects the environment. That the effect is there has always been clear and that it's ever more pressing as the world population grows is obvious.

So, it's about ecology, not warming.

2. Once we have identified the actual topic, there's no uncertainty about it. The title of Longhurst's book is Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science. It has chapter headings and subheadings like Estimating certainty levels in the scientific literature, Can a global mean temperature be measured? whose thrust is to undercut the certainty of the measured trends.

It's okay to moderate alarmism, but there are things we know with absolute certainty. One of these things is that statistics is absolutely inadequate to establish causes. It can only, with occasional success, establish trends and correlations, provided that framing and sampling went right. In statistics it's very easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Therefore, if IPCC's "predictive models" are statistical, they are not really predictive due to the very nature of statistics. It's stupid to make oneself vulnerable like this for misunderstanding the limitations of their chosen tool and for misapplying the focus on warming when it should be on chemical and structural desintegration of the ecosphere, unstable dynamics of the environment, industrial pollution, and poisoning.

All this said, the denialists are even more wrong. Many pages ago, Oakdale victoriously referred to a funny statistician who thought he had proven that trends don't exist. Trends don't exist only if the world is made of statistics. But the world is not made of statistics. The world is made of things and processes. Statistics may fail to establish the trends of a process, but this doesn't mean that the process doesn't exist. Statistics is absolutely incapable of attributing causes, but this doesn't mean that there are no causes. Argument from ignorance is not a valid argument. (Not my problem if IPCC and the scientific consensus has set a statistical range at which a correlation gets termed a cause. It would only be my problem if I were their professor.)

That there are environmental processes with changeable ecological quality is beyond dispute. That human activity has had major impact on environmental processes and occasionally annihilated ecological quality is also beyond dispute. The solution is to loosen the stranglehold on ecology.



But this is the best try from Oakdale thus far. Congrats.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-23, 10:39:46
Why do you think yourself qualified to determine how most of the world's economy should be structured and run?

Of course I don't. You still hold on notion that the goal is command economy, it's not. There have been several points in history when the old technology changes out quickly when enough inventions accumulate and others are improved upon to the point where the whole mode of life changed. Among these are the late 19th century and early twentieth. The amount of change that I'm suggesting is less than say, the difference between 1910 and thee 1950's when cars became the normal mode of transportation became cars, there was box in the kitchen that made its own ice, and there was a "bizarre" electronic box in the living room that showed moving pictures which I'm sure some folks trying to hold on the past said was impossible. I can just see socially conservative abacus users back then trying to poke holes in the concept of electronic calculators :lol: Just as waterwheels already existed for a couple decades before being replaced by coal plants, solar panels and other alternative methods generating electricity already exist, they just need to be improved upon. (even when they weren't directly supplying electricity, per se, they were powering machinery in early factories.) The batteries for electric and hybrid cars, likewise. The difference between then and now is that the stagecoach manufacturers lacked the clout to try to stop the replacement technology from developing and nitpick the flaws in the internal combustion engine.

But you don't actually doubt this can be done, do you? Your  conservative nature makes you fear the change.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-23, 22:07:02
I can copy&paste easily. Here's a quote I grabbed with Qpdfview, my fav PDF viewer
Yup. I, too, have installed a few "better" viewers. But I'm unwilling to switch to Debian for such... :)
That there are environmental processes with changeable ecological quality is beyond dispute. That human activity has had major impact on environmental processes and occasionally annihilated ecological quality is also beyond dispute. The solution is to loosen the stranglehold on ecology.
On a serious note: These statements are worded in such a way as to be, essentially, meaningless.
Even so: Would you agree that most of the world's "environmental" problems are local, and amenable to local remediation?
------------------------------------------------------------
Your conservative nature makes you fear the change.
Your Liberal nature makes you fantasize about changes yet to have happened! :)
(Yes, I remember Rbt. Kennedy using a quote from Geo. B. Shaw...to say much the same.)
If such change is coming, indeed, inevitable: Why is ever more encompassing government coercion required, to facilitate it? :)

I don't oppose solar power. I'm not against electric cars or those powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Heck, I don't even mind people bicycling to and fro -- provided they don't hog the road... What I oppose, what I'm against, what I mind -- is the destruction of working technology (and economy), in the hope that something else will magically appear to replace it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-24, 05:40:45

I can copy&paste easily. Here's a quote I grabbed with Qpdfview, my fav PDF viewer
Yup. I, too, have installed a few "better" viewers. But I'm unwilling to switch to Debian for such... :)

I'm on Manjaro, far away from Debian.


On a serious note: These statements are worded in such a way as to be, essentially, meaningless.
Even so: Would you agree that most of the world's "environmental" problems are local, and amenable to local remediation?

What's the meaningful difference between local and global?

An effective introduction of the ecological perspective in a single country may put it at an economic disadvantage compared to other countries. Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries. International agreements on these issues are indispensable.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: string on 2015-09-24, 12:25:02
Quote from: ersi
What's the meaningful difference between local and global?

An effective introduction of the ecological perspective in a single country may put it at an economic disadvantage compared to other countries. Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries. International agreements on these issues are indispensable.


Agreed absolutely. Cesspits export their stink.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-24, 16:07:42
Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries.

Something quite relevant for countries like Belgium and the Netherlands -- almost all of the remaining junk in rivers comes from France.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-24, 17:29:54
If such change is coming, indeed, inevitable: Why is ever more encompassing government coercion required, to facilitate it?

Who said it was? Who advocated for that here? Nobody! After all these years, you still don't understand that I'm against big government Your conservative to Right-wing pals would have far larger government in practice than I would.
What I oppose, what I'm against, what I mind -- is the destruction of working technology (and economy), in the hope that something else will magically appear to replace it.

No magic is required. Just maturation of existing technologies.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-26, 09:01:38

Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries.

Something quite relevant for countries like Belgium and the Netherlands -- almost all of the remaining junk in rivers comes from France.

Your rivers flows up north? interesting, all ours but one flows south.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-26, 15:59:07
Your rivers flows up north? interesting, all ours but one flows south.

Do you get any junk from Spain in them?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-26, 16:15:38

Your rivers flows up north? interesting, all ours but one flows south.

Do you get any junk from Spain in them?

Nuclear central of Almaraz, built at the river Tagus near our frontier.
I don't know what are we waiting for invading them in retaliation for such provocation.

Usually the problem it's not pollution but a centuries old dispute about the way they cut the water to us. Luckily we have several rivers starting here.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-09-27, 09:47:04
Hehe, but no polluting mining industries or some such? Lucky! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-09-28, 15:28:42
It had to happen-----.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2Fe9716d6047b501330ad5005056a9545d&hash=2d793053f77e50b3aabfa147732645e8" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.amuniversal.com/e9716d6047b501330ad5005056a9545d)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-01, 22:34:30

Hehe, but no polluting mining industries or some such? Lucky! :)

Pigs. Pigs pollute a lot.
For some reason it's the animal more alike people, so biologists says. I suppose one could live with a pig's heart...  :mad:
Probably many already lives with a pig's mind.  :lol:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 04:54:33
To get back to the topic:

Here's yet another essay (http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf) -- but it's from Frenchmen! That should count for something? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-07, 05:37:39
Here's yet another essay (http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf) -- but it's from Frenchmen! That should count for something?  :)

That's not an essay even less a sientific article. It's humour.
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as  ̳virtuous' runs into billions of euros  :lol:

A product that pays for itself in five years and generates profits for at least another ten, without no carbon footprint, it's clearly "inviable". :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-07, 05:43:08
This is the best one yet, Oakdale!

Quote from: Société de Calcul Mathématique SA

Summary

From the Seine's cold quays to the Ganges' burning shores,
The human troupe skips and swoons with delight, sees not
In a hole in the ceiling the Angel's trumpet
Gaping ominously like a black blunderbuss.

Charles Baudelaire: La Danse Macabre (The Dance of Death), in Les Fleurs du Mal (The Flowers of Evil)

Frankly, attempting to settle scientific issues with poetry and calling the other side "crusaders" makes me worry about what science writing has become. Probably the trend started a while ago and I'm only noticing now.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 06:24:37
They're mathematicians, ersi! :) (Ah! Yes: "crusaders" -for LESs (that's Limited English Speakers...) the word means only one thing. Just like "illegal aliens" has become a verboten term in California because so many Mexicans here only know the term from the Ridley Scott/Sigourney Weaver movie Alien! It seems they don't like being called "little green men" either...)
Please move over to the other thread.
Probably the trend started a while ago and I'm only noticing now.
Or stay here, and explain how you can be so oblivious... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-07, 07:39:16

They're mathematicians, ersi! :)

This explains the poem?


Ah! Yes: "crusaders" -for LESs (that's Limited English Speakers...) the word means only one thing.

They are French, if I'm reading right, so the word means the same to them as to me. It does not have the American evangelical aspect as in "prayer crusade" or whatever your megachurches do.

As to "illegal aliens", we always called them "immigrants". Though more lately they are "refugees". Less obfuscation.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 20:27:54
They are French, if I'm reading right, so the word means the same to them as to me.
I suspect they were educated differently, and better. Your presumption is quite parochial! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-07, 22:41:53
This explains the poem?

That's a satire for the well known French tendency for quoting their poets at scientific works. More than just French it's a Latin characteristic to show that our scientists are also cult people unlike their Saxon and American fellows. :)
As I said, the article is a joke about climate change denialists as well as to the adulation for the Académie des Sciences.

Course Oakdale couldn't ever understand he's quoting a satire.
That's what happens to Saxon pseudo intelectuals when they finally find true ones, they turn instantaneously ridiculous.
:lol:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 23:15:49
Course Oakdale couldn't ever understand he's quoting a satire.
I linked to the white paper, which I've read... :) More, apparently, than you've done!
Bernard Beauzamy does indeed have a sense of humor! And expertise that makes his opinions interesting and, perhaps, important. No?
------------------------------------------
Another "foreign" paper says:
Quote
[Because of the above bias errors] the hypothesis of dangerous global warming caused by human activity has not been substantiated by evidential science.
Thus a contrary claim of human activity being a causal factor for dangerous global warming must necessarily be an incorrect statement.
It follows, that the case for the costs involved to mitigate CO2 emissions is without
foundation and the resources required should be made available to sectors of the economy in need of urgent attention.
(source (http://www.ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/BehaviouralEconomics.pdf))
Is this, also, a spoof? A satire? Or, Belfrager, the inevitable Anglo-Saxon failure -- to be as sophisticated as, say, the PIGS? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-10, 04:47:54
@ersi: You've said "For me only the ecological quality matters." Does that include the current human inhabitants of this planet? Or only those you think should matter...?

Again I ask: Is a world-wide governmental authority required to reasonably deal with your environmental concerns?

(Will you run and hide, like some others have done... :) It's a hard question, I know!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-10, 10:04:37

@ersi: You've said "For me only the ecological quality matters." Does that include the current human inhabitants of this planet? Or only those you think should matter...?

Again I ask: Is a world-wide governmental authority required to reasonably deal with your environmental concerns?

(Will you run and hide, like some others have done... :) It's a hard question, I know!)

Not hard questions at all. Just stupid questions. You have these questions, because you think that people who are not as pro-corporate as you are must be disingenuous. Different from you, I have no concern for American economic and military supremacy.

Of course ecological quality includes people. Only people understand the term "ecological quality" with intellect. Animals understand it in their skin and intestines.

Ecological quality means anti-corporate, anti-industrial, and anti-urban, inasmuch as industries and cities are anti-ecological. Besides, corporate industries are a kind of government. They are the worst kind of government because they dictate people's lifestyle, how to work, what to work on, what to eat, what to earn, and deviation from this is disallowed by cutting the flow of resources. Corporations have monopoly on everything.

Corporations are totalitarian undemocratic governments. This should give you an answer about the "world-wide governmental authority" too if you had reading comprehension. But I'm not counting on this.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-10, 11:30:58
Only people understand the term "ecological quality" with intellect. Animals understand it in their skin and intestines.

That's an interesting thought. Even plants do it in the same sense animals do.
I believe the mineral kingdom to be the only one to be immune.

Course I'm not insinuating Oakdale to be intelectually like a rock... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-10, 17:23:29
Ecological quality means anti-corporate, anti-industrial, and anti-urban, inasmuch as industries and cities are anti-ecological.
:) You're worse than a Luddite! Why your ancestors bothered coming down from the trees, I don't know...
Still, you're welcome to live as you please. And to preach your ways to others.

But is that enough for you?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-10-11, 00:50:50
Heavens, OakdaleFTL. An ex-colonists who knows about the Luddites? Very encouraging so keep it up boy!  :o
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-11, 01:51:39
Does that include the current human inhabitants of this planet?

That silliness is symptomatic of the old nature vs humans mentality. The Right doesn't get it. If we wreck havoc on the planet, we do to ourselves. Poison the rivers, we poison ourselves. Find a small hole in the AGW theory and us that as a excuse to continue dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere, and we invite Drought and its friend Famine. Some Righties say the agricultural centers northward and so that would be fine. But Siberia and other northern latitudes are less fertile than our current agricultural areas. Further, do we really want to be dependent on food imports from Russia?  That's not to mention very costly coastal flooding in the world's financial centers such as NYC (that will be great for the economy, won't it?) How any billions will it cost to pump the water out of there, keeping in mind NYC is more than twenty times the size of New Orleans?

I can't help be notice that you brought zero science to this discussion. You claim models are wrong. Meanwhile other models are pretty damn close and ocean temperature seem to have this tendency to understate the heat there. What models are wrong? Oh, the IPCC ? That tells us nothing. Which ones from them, or do you even know?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-11, 04:41:38
Find a small hole in the AGW theory and us[e] that as a excuse to continue dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere, and we invite Drought and its friend Famine.
Even if the theory is wrong, and atmospheric (and oceanic...) CO2 levels are not important drivers of the world's climate? :)
That's not to mention very costly coastal flooding in the world's financial centers such as NYC (that will be great for the economy, won't it?) How any billions will it cost to pump the water out of there, keeping in mind NYC is more than twenty times the size of New Orleans?
What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" -- specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO2 levels? :)

You claim models are wrong. Meanwhile other models are pretty damn close and ocean temperature seem to have this tendency to understate the heat there. What models are wrong? Oh, the IPCC ? That tells us nothing. Which ones from them, or do you even know?
(emphasis added)
Which other models are "pretty damn close"? And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat? (Shouldn't that have an explanation in terms of physics, and be -if its an important factor- represented in the models?) The last I heard, the IPCC relied on some 28 models... And they've taken in recent years to talking about "ensembles"; which is to say, none of them is actually reliable! And a scatter-shot modeling of the climate seems somewhat lame, does it not? :) (Why would anyone expect the average of however many wrong models to yield correct predictions? And, without correct predictions, of what use are the models? And how do they fit into what I assume we both think of as science?)
If the major driver(s) of "the climate" are wrongly attributed by the models used by the IPCC, what sense does it make to take what might be considered drastic actions to control such?
(The IPCC is, after all, a United Nations organization...)
...Unless there are other reasons for those "drastic actions"? :) (Might the UN have "unpure" motives? :) )
I can't help [but] notice that you brought zero science to this discussion.
Zero science? You mean, I haven't cited Michael Mann, et al, repeatedly? That's true!
I take it, you think Keeling's 2000 paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.long) the work of a dolt? :) That's interesting...
(But don't feel too bad: I get the impression ersi feels the same way, about Lindzen and the Montreal Protocol... :) )
That silliness is symptomatic of the old nature vs humans mentality. The Right doesn't get it. If we wreck havoc on the planet, we do [it] to ourselves.
If we wreak havoc on industrial economies --to combat imaginary problems-- we certainly do it to ourselves... Why would we, I'd ask.
If you think long and hard, you'll likely find an answer. There may not be one, and there may not be a "conspiracy" -- but surely sociology and psychology together can explain what went wrong...
(I jest, of course!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-11, 17:47:10
What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" -- specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO2 levels?  :)

Where's your science? Put up or shut up.
Which other models are "pretty damn close"? And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat?

Dear God, did you take any science. At all? Rhetorical question, it would have been a requirement to graduate high school. However, the very fact that you asked that silly question does betray a lack of science education. Your education comes from blogs and articles they linked to, but you have no grounding in the fundamentals.  In addition, you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Badly. 

Oh and reducing emission has nothing to with wrecking havoc on industrialized economies. That's crap for simpletons in the GOP base. Cap and Trade (like "Obamacare" ) is a market-based idea originating with Republicans, before the party collectively lost its mind. Meanwhile, men like Musk are building the future. Let me provide an example of reduced emissions and improved performance to show it can and is often done.

Here's an example. People used to think fuel economy and reduced emissions where the enemy of horsepower in a car engine. All that changed when with now commonplace technologies such as multi-valve engines multiport fuel injection, etc.  The automakers first successfully make these technologies widespread made billions and thereby improved their nations economy. In the US market, that was Japanese. Meanwhile US automakers where still relying on antiquated OHV engines and where losing marketshare (and therefore direct good paying jobs at their plants and jobs at the suppliers plants.) I do apologize for inconvenience of using a real world example of what happens when you continue to use old, higher emissions technologies however instead of poor rhetoric and party talking points. :p

Higher levels of technology to reduce emissions (and again increase efficiency in no way amounts to loss of economic competitiveness. Dragging our feet does. Does this mean I support heavy handed regulation? Of course not. But I do caution against such reliance on fossils fuels and other old, inefficient fuel sources and also seem to be playing a hand adversely impacting the climate and creating pollution (which taxpayers wind up footing the bill to clean up, such is the case with Superfund sites.)  Some regulation now to avoid more Draconian measures and higher costs in future is advisable, however.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-12, 09:04:48
What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" -- specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO2 levels?  :)

You might not want to say that too loud when you're in the vicinity of a resident of e.g. the most vulnerable European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium -- or someone from around New Orleans.[1] :)

[1] NB We've got the money and know-how to implement whatever successor the Delta Works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works) may need, as does America. It's countries like Myanmar that are at risk in a similar way but without the means to counteract the problem.
And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat?

Where does it have this tendency? A little village in Gaulbit of ocean south of Greenland?

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.kennislink.nl%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F000%2F237%2F411%2Flarge%2F201501-201508.gif%3F1444378196&hash=dc7e88c2336f8749aa835e211ed3eca6" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.kennislink.nl/system/files/000/237/411/large/201501-201508.gif?1444378196) (http://www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/een-koude-vlek-in-de-atlantische-oceaan)

But I do caution against such reliance on fossils fuels and other old, inefficient fuel sources and also seem to be playing a hand adversely impacting the climate and creating pollution (which taxpayers wind up footing the bill to clean up, such is the case with Superfund sites.)  Some regulation now to avoid more Draconian measures and higher costs in future is advisable, however.

Quite true, and that's not even including e.g. the costs that would be associated with people relocating. If you think a bit of war in Syria makes for a nice refugee crisis, try worldwide flooding and desertification.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-12, 10:06:22

What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" -- specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO2 levels?  :)

You might not want to say that too loud when you're in the vicinity of a resident of e.g. the most vulnerable European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium -- or someone from around New Orleans.[1] :)

[1] NB We've got the money and know-how to implement whatever successor the Delta Works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works) may need, as does America. It's countries like Myanmar that are at risk in a similar way but without the means to counteract the problem.

Yeah, but where's the evidence that this is due to human causes, that it's alarming, and that it's global? And if the models didn't predict this, then there's no evidence that it's happening in the first place!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-12, 11:08:41
Btw, here (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/european-coastal-lowlands-most-vulnerable-to-sea-level-rise) is a map of the European areas most vulnerable to the rising sea level. It's almost as if someone drew a map of my home turf, some of my favorite areas in Italy, and some places in Normandy I'd probably like to visit someday. It's perhaps a little more personal than to someone from Paris or Berlin, although I'd be inclined to think that over in Central and Eastern Europe the summers and winters are harsh enough already.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eea.europa.eu%2Fdata-and-maps%2Ffigures%2Feuropean-coastal-lowlands-most-vulnerable-to-sea-level-rise%2Finsert-to-box-9.eps%2Fimage_large&hash=9c5bfbd42d5badff761e206347047dee" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/european-coastal-lowlands-most-vulnerable-to-sea-level-rise/insert-to-box-9.eps/image_large)

A similar albeit somewhat cruder picture for the United States can be found here (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southeast). The entire Mississippi and Louisiana coast line seems to be under similar threat as the Benelux area, while one doubts if the local government is prepared to undertake the necessary investments in coastal defense infrastructure.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fnca2014.globalchange.gov%2Fsites%2Freport%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fweb-large%2FFigure-17.6-hi.jpg&hash=2b6759c80bf85098320ea68a95554767" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/Figure-17.6-hi.jpg)

Yeah, but where's the evidence that this is due to human causes, that it's alarming, and that it's global? And if the models didn't predict this, then there's no evidence that it's happening in the first place!

Human CO2 emissions are probably a fairly small fish, but it's the one we most directly control and it's the push that starts the ball rolling. The real worry obviously isn't the fairly small (but not non-existent) amount of damage caused by our CO2 emissions, but the release of all kinds of gases trapped in polar and tundra ice that would thus be facilitated. But to deny that CO2 plays a role feels a bit like holding your finger next to someone's face, calling "look over here!" and then saying you didn't poke the person in the face because you merely kept your finger stationary in that particular area.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-12, 16:17:45
but the release of all kinds of gases trapped in polar and tundra ice that would thus be facilitated.

That's correct. Specifically the concern is methane hydrates, which are already releasing the gas into our atmosphere. Historically, global environmental disasters (ie mass extinctions)  don't just have one cause, but one thing starts a chain reaction. Even the asteroid or comet that wiped out the dinosaurs didn't achieve this on its own. It set off a chain reaction. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-12, 16:53:04

Yeah, but where's the evidence that this is due to human causes, that it's alarming, and that it's global? And if the models didn't predict this, then there's no evidence that it's happening in the first place!

Human CO2 emissions are probably a fairly small fish, but it's the one we most directly control and it's the push that starts the ball rolling. The real worry obviously isn't the fairly small (but not non-existent) amount of damage caused by our CO2 emissions, but the release of all kinds of gases trapped in polar and tundra ice that would thus be facilitated.

I agree with you that "to start the ball rolling" we have to start somewhere, but I'm not sure we are dealing with a "ball" here. If I were to suggest the policies, then instead of controlling the emissions, I would directly go after the cause of emissions and ban fossil fuels and plastic, forcing industries rapidly to come up with alternatives. Industries do not invent things unless (1) it's extremely lucrative or (2) they have to. This is not a ball that would start rolling unless policy-makers ensure the course of development.

Emissions are just thin air and hard to measure, which is one of the several points where IPCC approach is flawed. However, if we are to measure emissions, then CO2 is the wrongest measure - it's part of the life cycle, not an industrial emission. The right measure would be the soup of compounds that comes out of all sorts of pipes and causes acid rains, smog, and poisons water.

Good cause, but hardly anything about it is being done right. This only foments skepticism. Nowadays you can be a climate skeptic (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/), i.e. skeptical about climate, and think you are onto something clever.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Sparta on 2015-10-12, 18:23:08
Quote
ban fossil fuels and plastic


it sounds like a pipedream .


you see,  sir ...

why still there are many fuel and plastic suppliers .
it is because people demanding them .

when there is demands there  is also suppliers .


stop consuming  them at once , then suppliers also aint sell them anymore .
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-12, 20:04:47
I agree with you that "to start the ball rolling" we have to start somewhere, but I'm not sure we are dealing with a "ball" here. If I were to suggest the policies, then instead of controlling the emissions, I would directly go after the cause of emissions and ban fossil fuels and plastic, forcing industries rapidly to come up with alternatives.

I meant the ball that gets the real problems rolling, not the solution. As far as solutions go, the cap and trade system for NO2 worked very well. I also think that improved technology will increasingly offer bits and pieces of the solution in a very capitalist manner. Solar panels have become so cost-efficient that they quite subsidizing them. The Uber of the future won't need drivers. I hope to be able to avoid buying a car until that moment comes. For the moment, the Cambio "now and then" shared car system suits me very well for the occasional shopping that's easier to do using an automobile. Partially it's a degree of environmental consciousness, but let's be honest: I've got as much car as I want and need for no more than a few hundred a year. Last month's car bill? € 10,90.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-12, 21:25:29

As far as solutions go, the cap and trade system for NO2 worked very well.

Good to hear. But that's about it. I don't think industry and society in general have moved one bit away from rampant consumerism.


I also think that improved technology will increasingly offer bits and pieces of the solution in a very capitalist manner. Solar panels have become so cost-efficient that they quite subsidizing them. The Uber of the future won't need drivers. I hope to be able to avoid buying a car until that moment comes. For the moment, the Cambio "now and then" shared car system suits me very well for the occasional shopping that's easier to do using an automobile. Partially it's a degree of environmental consciousness, but let's be honest: I've got as much car as I want and need for no more than a few hundred a year. Last month's car bill? € 10,90.

Great, but so-called solutions like this only work in cities, which are themselves the problem. Modern cities rob resources and push trash all over the globe out of sight of the city people, so they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. The best you can do is to read the labels on your food and clothes, but everybody reads the price labels anyway, always has, and always behaves accordingly.

The proper solution is to make life in the countryside economically self-sufficient once again, so that it would be worth while to live there. People should be able to locally produce everything they need, grow their own food on the spot, build houses by themselves without needing to drive far away on a piece of foreign equipment to buy more pieces of foreign equipment. Local production and processing of everything as far as possible is the way of restoring ecological consciousness, so that wherever you look, you see things in terms of ecology, you know by what natural processes the thing arised, how it can be practically used, and what happens to it when disposed a given way.

Only people with this kind of ecological awareness will carry the humanity further after the catastrophe. The wider the dissemination of this awareness, the greater the group of survivors. To avoid the catastrophe, the capitalist idea of efficiency (i.e. efficiency in terms of monetary profit) and riding on ever-increasing demand (consumption) need to be removed from economy, but everybody knows this will never happen.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-12, 23:23:59
The proper solution is to make life in the countryside economically self-sufficient once again, so that it would be worth while to live there. People should be able to locally produce everything they need, grow their own food on the spot, build houses by themselves without needing to drive far away on a piece of foreign equipment to buy more pieces of foreign equipment. Local production and processing of everything as far as possible is the way of restoring ecological consciousness, so that wherever you look, you see things in terms of ecology, you know by what natural processes the thing arised, how it can be practically used, and what happens to it when disposed a given way.

Only people with this kind of ecological awareness will carry the humanity further after the catastrophe.

This man is a Mad Max ecologist... :)
That's the way to go.

Les beaux esprits toujours se rencontre...

Everything Ersi said is the purest truth.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-13, 03:22:52
Good cause, but hardly anything about it is being done right. This only foments skepticism. Nowadays you can be a climate skeptic (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/), i.e. skeptical about climate, and think you are onto something clever.

Skepticism is often a good thing, including challenging AGW. However the problem is that so many of them have devolved into deniers that repeat things that are demonstrably false such as that global warming has reversed since 1998. 1998 was an unusually warm year and  explains why  (http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/jan99/noaa99-1.html). They also say things like "Since urban heat islands can add as much as 10 degrees F to nighttime temperatures, this can create a warming signal over time that is related to a particular location, and not the climate as a whole. " (From the first page of the Climate Skeptic site). It doesn't take much effort to learn the heat island's climate trends follow the same trends as rural stations and the most warming seems to be taking place in the Arctic, where you can be hundreds (if no thousands) of miles from any city with a heat island. Incidentally here in Las Vegas we have one of the largest heat island effects in the country :p

Also they seem to scan for what they consider strawmen instead of looking a the big picture. Further, they provide links to old articles that are no longer at the location they link to. An example of this is to a study about  butterflies  (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6594/abs/382765a0.html). Note you can't actually read the study there to draw an conclusion and then note the article seems to be from 1996. Still going on about nearly 20 year old studies, guys? And not providing a correct link? Really?

Perhaps the skeptics are too busy trying to be clever instead of coming up with counter science that will force climate change scientists to improve and refine their methods.  And there's precious little to even challenge a laymen that agrees with AGW. Clever is not a synonym for scientific. Of course, Ersi  said " think you are onto something clever" not that they actually are.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-13, 05:05:41
Sang, did you read ersi's link to climate-skeptic? Or Ridley's article? :)

It's true, I get most of the links to papers I read -- from the internet... (There are some few "bloggers" whom I trust, explicitly; Judith Curry is one.) You -apparently- get yours from NGOs or their publicity organs. Yes, I know that's an un-fair accusation: You were a Sociology major; what would you know about science? :) (OK: I delivered the expected jibe...) Now, why I ask, are the papers I've mentioned, linked to, and wanted to discuss -- ignored? (By you... You can explain or not.)
(That butterfly paper could have been yours to read, for a mere $32 American! That's Nature for you! But I don't see why you were miffed: It supported your position... And it wasn't me who linked to it!)
I didn't read it, either: Broke bum that I am, I only read "free" science! But -I grant you- when I learned that the author refused to share the paper's data with other scientists, I dismissed it. I'm not into "secret science"... :))

To ersi (and Belfrager): If we "revert" to the mode of existence you'd like, how many human beings could the Earth support? :(
Two billion? Surely, not much more... What to do with the rest? And their increase?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of a more technical bent: Keeling's c2000 paper -about tidal effects in our solar system upon our weather- is a compelling critique of the tyros's presumption of "something we can control"...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-13, 05:41:53

To ersi (and Belfrager): If we "revert" to the mode of existence you'd like, how many human beings could the Earth support? :(
Two billion? Surely, not much more... What to do with the rest? And their increase?

I can pull a similar strawman: You want to kill off humanity as fast as possible? Why heat and pollute the planet? Why not simply nuke it?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-13, 06:13:18
Three nations currently could do this... :) But would they? (I don't think so.)
You're not pulling a "similar" straw-man argument: You're ignoring a direct question about the consequences of what you propose...
(Not that that's anything unusual! :) You still think you're in High School debating class...)
Or -perhaps- you propose nothing, and merely rant about your "back to Nature" philosophy...a curmudgeon and know-nothing, determined to be but an irritant! :)

Sang, please read the already-linked-to (...by not-me!) essay by a respected science journalist: link (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-13, 06:48:20
But I don't see why you were miffed: It supported your position...

Once again, you missed it completely. Why are they after such an old paper, one that most casual readers won't bother paying for? Also I don't think you even know my position.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-13, 07:28:18
Quote
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)
(source (https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) -- or countless others)
Sang, I don't know who you hero-worship. But do you think you are smarter, more knowledgeable and better informed than the journalist (Matt Ridley) who wrote the essay I linked to above? (I'm pretty sure you're not... :) )

Again, I ask you: Why do you ignore Keeling's later work?

And, since you don't want to accept "old" science -- why is the speculation of Arrhenius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius) so important to you?! :)

But you're right: I don't know your "position"... (It took a great long time, and other more intelligent interlocutors than me -- to tease out what ersi really believes!) Might you deign to explain yourself? :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many years ago, I asked a question of a certified nuclear physicist: What is so important about "renormalization"? (He worked at a weapons factory a little west of me... :) ) He just winked, and said, "Renormalization was very deep!" Ooh!
But -as best as I can tell- the math of the best theories we have of quantum effects, when -necessarily- are couched in partial differential equations -- they throw infinity back at us! So, we took the best measurements we could, of those factors, and plugged them in -- in place of what our math insisted was infinity... And violá we got reasonable answers... So: Everything's hunky-dorry!
I remain unconvinced... If "deep" had become a new synonym for "it works," no one had told me!
And if understanding had ceased to be a goal of scientific investigation, I likewise wasn't informed.

Your view of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming, aka "Climate Change") is well-represented: Man is mucking up the environment by using fossil fuels, and He should be stopped! (I'm sure you'll try and back away from that... :) ) My view is a little different:

I think we should continue to try and understand the Earth's climate "system" -- for our benefit. I think the various political factions trying to drive the debate about climate science should be ignored -- they have nothing important to say...
The few climate scientists who prefer "doing science" should be encouraged, no? :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and BTW: Did you think my simple question posed to ersi was a straw-man? :) Consider what happens, if people in Nevada have to survive -- by subsistence-farming? :)
Or people in California's central valleys -- without irrigation?! (I'd hazard, close to a billion people would die, pretty damn quick! But -- who cares!? As long as we're -us few survivors- close to Mother Earth? :) )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ridiculous propensity of Man to choose low-land areas near oceans to populate is well-documented. And we've managed (...look at south-eastern Florida, or -Frensie- your own country!) to find ways to accommodate our propensities is a testament to our gullibility or our persistence!
Should we consider decimating (literal meaning... ! :) ) our economies, to accommodate these "outliers"?
Are you that important, as a place? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-13, 10:08:29
The ridiculous propensity of Man to choose low-land areas near oceans to populate is well-documented. And we've managed (...look at south-eastern Florida, or -Frensie- your own country!) to find ways to accommodate our propensities is a testament to our gullibility or our persistence!
Should we consider decimating (literal meaning... !  :)  ) our economies, to accommodate these "outliers"?
Are you that important, as a place?  :)

Like I said, this place will be just fine. More so than most of the world. But yes, if decimating our economies were necessary, which it isn't, shouldn't it at least be rationally compared with the consequences of the alternatives?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-13, 11:48:43

Oh, and BTW: Did you think my simple question posed to ersi was a straw-man? :) Consider what happens, if people in Nevada have to survive -- by subsistence-farming? :)

The strawman consists in the assumption that people in Nevada have to become subsistence farmers. What I actually said: People should be able to locally produce everything they need, grow their own food on the spot, etc., i.e. local production (different from mere subsistence farming, even though this is what I personally prefer) should be possible, not a requirement. 

Do you notice the difference? Of course you don't. You often mouth off about big global CO2-munching government too in this connection.

In demand-driven (and demand-fomenting) capitalism, small-scale agriculture has no economic chance to build a local business cycle. Even the currently trendy eco-branding follows the same national and supranational marketing patterns as the ordinary agri-industry. And people cannot tell the difference.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-13, 12:16:21
How is it, ersi, that you -and hardly anyone else does- know how people should live? :)
Perhaps you should revert to a hermitage, and keep to yourself... You don't seem to care for others; which is to say, you'd like the world to yourself -- or, at least, run your way.
But couldn't most "others" make the same claim, on you? (Or are you that special?)
Why -other than that you're not comfortable with it- should "economy" be restricted to what you call locality? (Must people be as limited as other animals? :) )
By all means, be a home-body. But you overstep your authority -and your understanding- when you'd prescribe such for everyone else...
Unless there's something you're not telling us. Hm.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-13, 17:22:52
How is it, ersi, that you -and hardly anyone else does- know how people should live?

Now note what he really said "People should be able to locally produce everything they need..." In other words, have the capacity to do so if they choose to do so. That completely different from saying people will be required to, or even that they should. It's not just positions that you twist into an unrecognizable shape. The question becomes "is it deliberate?"
I think the various political factions trying to drive the debate about climate science should be ignored -- they have nothing important to say...
So when are you gonna do that? In science the real debate is not emissions are causing climate change. That's long settled. Humanity is. The real questions are by how much and what are the consequences.
Your view of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming, aka "Climate Change") is well-represented: Man is mucking up the environment by using fossil fuels, and He should be stopped! (I'm sure you'll try and back away from that...  :)  ) My view is a little different:

So is mine :p Did you read what I actually wrote. I spoke of newer, less polluting and more efficient technologies replacing the old and thus the lower emissions economy could very well have a higher real GDP than the current one. What I wrote has nothing to with "... He should be stopped! " which implies force.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-15, 00:33:45
Here ya go--- equal opportunity.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2F70243ba04da601330d1f005056a9545d&hash=261ad7d59694f4e129abbc90f76ab9ad" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.amuniversal.com/70243ba04da601330d1f005056a9545d)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-15, 01:22:38
In science the real debate is not emissions are causing climate change. That's long settled. Humanity is. The real questions are by how much and what are the consequences.
Even in this simplistic estimation, your biases predominate: The "long settled" part is political illusion... (Or do you think "affect" and "have an effect" mean "control"? :) ) Yes, all organisms on Earth have some effect upon their ecologies; if we can't reasonably answer the questions "by how much and with what consequences," then what are we talking about?
I spoke of newer, less polluting and more efficient technologies replacing the old and thus the lower emissions economy could very well have a higher real GDP than the current one.
If such are mature enough, they will accomplish what you say... But shouldn't these "newer, less polluting and more efficient technologies" have to compete with the old?
I'm all for innovation. But I'm not for legislative destruction! (Creative destruction is to be expected... :) ) All the so-called "green" energy sources available right now are able to provide less than 20% of current usage... And, without government subsidies, they are even less cost-effective.
(There are some -very local- exceptions; we should use and enjoy them!)

Let's jump back to the beginning: What science is there that suggests that human technology is about to or likely to "destroy" the Earth's "climate system"?
If you fall back on the IPCC, you've reverted to the political realm... If you won't read widely in the field, you'll need to rely on authority... If you pick authorities that have been shown to be -shall we say? :)- untrustworthy, why should your viewpoint be considered?

No coercion? Wow! Tell Obama and his EPA... No corruption? Wow! Tell the EU; or simply scan the results of the measures applied since the Kyoto Protocols... (And don't forget the VW diesel scandal! :) ) Peer review? Hm. What rock have you been hiding under... :) It's broken, for reasons that were forecast generations ago...
All that's really left of the CAGW theory is the monied political interests. And their influence will wane, or their efforts will collapse their support...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-15, 17:09:23
Your post isn't worth my time answering.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-16, 03:57:11
Your post isn't worth my time answering.
When you don't understand the topic and have no means to do so that won't "break" your mind-set, of course not! :)
I can understand, if you don't think you can grasp the science. I can accept it, if you've determined that political goals outweigh intellectual honesty. I can even believe that you recognize neither in yourself: You've been well-taught, in pseudo-science...
But I'd thought you were a little more capable. My bad!
Carry on, in the fog of your politics...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-16, 08:55:41
Just another "means nothing" post:
Quote
In some ways, in fact, science communication is expanding rapidly. The number of science blogs has grown tremendously, for example. But the number of such outlets that can be relied upon to provide accurate, or un-spun, information is tougher to track. As Nadia El-Wady, the president of the World Federation of Science Journalists, put it last year, there are "only a few pockets of excellence in an ocean of mediocrity."
Diving into this arena requires time, some level of culture change and even courage, particularly given how the Web can be an amplifier for unfounded attacks and disinformation as much as knowledge. But hunkering down, as some institutions - including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - tried to do after recent controversies, is probably not a sustainable approach in the long haul. As the IPCC prepares its Fifth Assessment Report, it does so with what, to my eye, appears to be an utterly inadequate budget for communicating its findings and responding in an agile way to nonstop public scrutiny facilitated by the Internet. I would love to think that the countries that created the climate panel could also contribute to boosting the panel's capacity for transparency, responsiveness and outreach....
...The alternative is to hunker down, as if waiting for a storm to pass. But the explosive changes afoot in how people share information and shape ideas are no stray storm.
Interpreting them that way would be like mixing up weather and climate.
(source (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/a-top-task-for-the-new-chair-of-the-u-n-climate-panel-a-communication-reboot/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body))


Would y'all like my comments...? Or would you prefer I lay back and "lurk"? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-18, 20:37:11
Would y'all like my comments...? Or would you prefer I lay back and "lurk"?  :)

No one answers him? he's begging...
:)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-19, 07:25:52

Would y'all like my comments...? Or would you prefer I lay back and "lurk"?  :)

No one answers him? he's begging...
:)

Some people are able to make pretty interesting comments on things that they think don't exist, such as atheists about God. Not so with Oakdale. At times he says he's pursuing truth, but his pursuit invariably consists in denouncing and denying things. He has also said that truth itself is reification, so it looks like he is vigorously pursuing nothing. Which is more painful to watch rather than interesting.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-20, 03:23:11
Some people prefer completely "academic" debates... And some insist theories that are provably wrong are still valuable, and that the criticism of such is denunciation and denial! :) (Note those terms: Political and religious/psychiatric; no hint of the scientific...)

I wish, ersi, you knew what reification meant. But I fear your personal philosophy doesn't permit you such understanding.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-20, 10:35:05
Not sure if this should go here, but it's starting to look like just about all car makers all over the world were messing with their exhaust systems: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row

Quote
Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi have joined the growing list of manufacturers whose diesel cars are known to emit significantly more pollution on the road than in regulatory tests [...]

"The issue is a systemic one" across the industry, said Nick Molden, whose company Emissions Analytics tested the cars. The Guardian revealed last week that diesel cars from Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo and Jeep all pumped out significantly more NOx in more realistic driving conditions.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-20, 11:35:11

I wish, ersi, you knew what reification meant.

It's the buzzword that in the mind of the nominalist is the killer argument that needs no backup of its own. You have taught me well.


Not sure if this should go here, but it's starting to look like just about all car makers all over the world were messing with their exhaust systems...

The gap between lab tests and real-life measurements - 30% to 50% is common - has been known among expert mechanics all along, but marketing is strictly separated from experts. The principle of the separation of powers, you see.

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades. They are free to keep questioning. They'll keep getting the same non-answers.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-20, 13:27:21
For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades. They are free to keep questioning. They'll keep getting the same non-answers.

I see plenty of people with driving styles who should take a good hard look at the way they brake and accelerate before thinking about questioning anything.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-20, 13:42:49

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades. They are free to keep questioning. They'll keep getting the same non-answers.

I see plenty of people with driving styles who should take a good hard look at the way they brake and accelerate before thinking about questioning anything.

So do I, except that I was talking about technically aware people who do the measurements of their own. And the specs should reflect reality anyway. For example phone and laptop battery stats tend to match reality much better, even though they depend a lot on what you are doing with it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-20, 14:11:16
For example phone and laptop battery stats tend to match reality much better, even though they depend a lot on what you are doing with it.

I tend to exceed them. I find high screen brightness unpleasant, and a phone notifying you every time you receive an e-mail the highest degree of idiocy. On my netbook I have a reflex to hit Fn + F4 (= turn off backlight) whenever I need a moment to think. Reality takes many forms. But of course manufacturers will err on "my" side of average, just as best by dates on food are designed to shield food producers from risk on the one hand and to promote increased consumption (through throwing away perfectly good food) on the other. On most soft cheese, the best by date is more of a "let it mature at the very least until" date. :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-10-20, 15:51:27
For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades.


That may relate more to the fuel. They put up to 10% ethanol in gasoline nowadays. I've gotten around a hundred extra miles out of a tank using non-ethanol gas on trips.

Diesel engines tend to get way higher MPG.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-20, 16:24:38

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades.


That may relate more to the fuel. They put up to 10% ethanol in gasoline nowadays. I've gotten around a hundred extra miles out of a tank using non-ethanol gas on trips.

Diesel engines tend to get way higher MPG.


Up to a point, anyway. Believe it or not, that's one of the issues with the VW diesel problems. The engines in question are small. 2.0 liter engines. They get great mileage, and since they're turbocharged they have decent power for such a small engine. Problem: There's not much left-over power for the particulate filters and the DEF system. So-- VW didn't install DEF on the 2.0 engines, hoping they were small enough not to have to worry about it. DEF as it just so happens does wonders to control N0x emissions, but at the cost of power. Also--- the DEF systems have been something of a maintenance nightmare, breaking and requiring expensive fixes to keep it going. I know guys right now who won't touch Sprinters just because of the DEF nightmares.

Oh, yeah---- while I'm thinking of it: Diesel isn't as straight as one might hope either: Here in Illinois and I hear also in Indiana, the fuel is up to 15% "biodiesel" mix. That's soybean oil, for you out-of-towners. Works OK sort of, but there IS a hit on the mileage, and biodiesel gels at higher temperatures than straight #2 diesel does--- so you have to add more (expensive) anti-gelling fluid to the fuel in winter.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-20, 17:42:12
So the take away is that Diesel might not be a good choice for the environmentally conscious, despite higher EPA numbers. For Biodiesel, I found a  Consumer Reports  (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/diesel-vs-biodiesel-vs-vegetable-oil/index.htm) article. In their tests, Biodiesel performed well vs petroleum diesel. They used a VW Jetta TDI for the test. The acceleration all types of Diesel models was abyssal, 14 and 15 seconds 0-60. By comparison, my gasoline Beetle can do that in about 8 seconds and sometimes you need the extra power to avoid getting clobbered on the freeway :p 

It's easy to see why EPA numbers my vary from actual experience. I have to take two freeways to work, the 15 and the 95. Sometimes the sign indicates 14 minutes down the 15 to the 95 and other days it's four minutes. Both days are weekdays at the same times and there wasn't necessarily an accident. The result is I get better mileage on the quicker days, obviously. I'm not sure there is way to make the EPA completely accurate, since some cities have more consistent driving conditions and others, like Las Vegas, it almost seems random.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-20, 18:12:44
I'm not sure there is way to make the EPA completely accurate, since some cities have more consistent driving conditions and others, like Las Vegas, it almost seems random.

Plus gas mileage will necessarily be quite a bit better around here than a little to the south in Wallonia (mostly flat vs mountainous terrain).
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ensbb3 on 2015-10-20, 20:36:56
Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-20, 22:19:09
VW "scandal" is nothing but an American attack against the German industry that is robbing their clients with much better products. Since when the USA has any credibility for acusing others? American car manufacturers accusing Europeans of polluting??  :lol:

"My V6, 5.000cc brute engine pollutes much less than your 1.300cc highly sofisticated low emission one..." so they say.

Ban cars if you really want to do something that helps the world. Start with your ones.
Oops, you don't want to do so, isn't it?

To me, this is a reason for immedietely create a tax on pollution on all American products for exportation. Let's say 100%, that way they will learn.
Course that German capitalists and Jew finance wants to keep on profiting from American customers and everybody else, so, basically, nothing will change.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-21, 04:22:34
Bel, you don't have to perpetuate all the stereotypes of Europeans yourself! Let someone else carry part of the load... :)
(BTW: It'll likely be the EU authorities that will really tear into VW...)
Ban cars if you really want to do something that helps the world.
"The world"? You seem unable to see beyond your own nose... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-21, 07:03:02
In this case, I have to agree with Oakdale. In trying to perpetuate American stereotypes, you wind up perpetuating the worst European ones. All the major American car manufacturers are global operations and most of the same basic machines are sold in North America as in Europe. Even "Yank Tanks" such as the Dodge Charger get fitted with eight speed transmissions, resulting theoretical  30+ highway gas mileage. Take the Opel Insignia and Chevy Impala. Both are built off the GM Epsilon II  platform. You can get a 1.4 liter engine in the Insignia, but you'd have to be nuts to take a large car with that of an small of an engine out on the freeway around here.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-21, 07:31:01
Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.

I'd be more concerned about going by all of those precipices at breakneck CC speed than about gas mileage.  :D But really, you go uphill in the same gear as you go downhill -- everybody knows that. :P (Except, perhaps, cruise control? I've never driven an automatic in the mountains, so I haven't been able to try out such odd ideas.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-21, 11:09:06

Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.

I'd be more concerned about going by all of those precipices at breakneck CC speed than about gas mileage.  :D But really, you go uphill in the same gear as you go downhill -- everybody knows that. :P (Except, perhaps, cruise control? I've never driven an automatic in the mountains, so I haven't been able to try out such odd ideas.)


I have driven an automatic in the mountains. It's one time when manually shifting an automatic is a really good idea. The machinery doesn't do well doing it itself---- the engine labors in too high a gear while climbing, and the car is out of control because the transmission doesn't automatically downshift when on a down-grade. So--- manually shift it, and that takes care of the problem of an automatic in mountain country.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-21, 12:37:01
the car is out of control because the transmission doesn't automatically downshift when on a down-grade.

I imagine this will have been improved on newer automatics? They're reasonably clever about upshifting depending on how you're accelerating, in any case. But yeah, I know most automatics have a first and second gear of some sort for going down mountains. In at least modern Peugeot cars it's much more fun though: you can switch between automatic and manual gear changes at will. The car takes care of the clutch, but you control when it shifts up and down. Not that there's any need to in normal use.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-21, 13:09:25
I drive a Chevy full-size van. 4-speed automatic. No, it doesn't automatically downshift in hill country. But, it does have a selector so you can manually shift the transmission. Gotta do it or you'll end up with cherry-red brakes that are fading fast by the time you get down to the bottom of a long grade.

I've seen some newer cars in the ads, and I wonder if the flat-lander who designed the things ever drove a car in mountains. They look to be poorly designed for hilly driving.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-21, 22:20:28
"The world"? You seem unable to see beyond your own nose...  :)

Under my nose, is the entire world.
:lol:

Bel, you don't have to perpetuate all the stereotypes of Europeans yourself! Let someone else carry part of the load... :)

Rjhowie is a prolific helper and you Oakdale, you do the rest.
The most "I'm at European level" of Americans. :)

......................................

As for the "American's" automatic shifting I will not even discuss it. Abominable. Something proper of pygmies that don't reach the clutch pedal.
....................................

I want to discuss light pollution, that prevents people to see the stars. Of course it's not Anthropogenic to Oakdale. There's no proof of that...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-22, 05:11:33
I want to discuss light pollution, that prevents people to see the stars. Of course it's not Anthropogenic to Oakdale. There's no proof of that...
As always, you and a few others prefer your own perverted understanding to reality... :)
Indeed, modern industrial societies don't often offer the clear view of the night sky that a Neolithic lifestyle would. What would you give up, to "give" it to everyone else?
You always seem to ignore the benefits of modern industrial societies... One such being the most problematic for your views -of climate, and culture: That is, procreation!
Without modern industrial societies the Earth would soon become inundated with "excess" humans -- who'd die off rather quickly.
Does that bother you near as much as most people not being able to see a Neolithic skyscape?!

Can we get back to the subject (that you hate, and refuse to address...), climatology? The Paris meeting is fast approaching... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-22, 07:42:03
You can give up on things like lighting the entire expressway, '70s style, and switch to only lighting around exits and such without giving up on anything. We're already implementing that whenever old stuff needs to be replaced, of course.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-22, 18:48:03
Without modern industrial societies the Earth would soon become inundated with "excess" humans -- who'd die off rather quickly.

I see... light pollution and industrial gases controls population growth and also substitutes health care systems...
Oakdale's logicus tratatus... you should publish it, the world lacks good comedians. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 06:28:28
Bel, modern medicine is the result of modern industry... It may not be good enough to keep your local shamans from killing their (very) patients; but modern medicine kills quite a lot, too.

What you don't seem able to grasp, is that without modern agronomy most areas of our little planet would be unpopulated... That is, the people who live there couldn't.
Is that something you'd like? Or even something you'd accept?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-23, 08:26:09

What you don't seem able to grasp, is that without modern agronomy most areas of our little planet would be unpopulated... That is, the people who live there couldn't.

Can you translate this into normal logic?

To me, the statement parses as follows:

1. No modern agronomy = no people on most areas of the planet
2. Given no modern agronomy, the people who live on most areas of the planet couldn't live where they are living.

These are two distinct points with no connection. Either you are saying that modern agronomy caused the population explosion of recent times (which is a good thing in and of itself how exactly?) or you are saying, well, something else that I don't know how to formulate in human language.

The first point assumes that the population explosion of the last few centuries is a good thing in and of itself. This presupposition is silly enough not to argue with. As to the second point - is there a point?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 09:30:40
To me, the statement parses as follows:
1. No modern agronomy = no people on most areas of the planet
2. Given no modern agronomy, the people who live on most areas of the planet couldn't live where they are living.
Close enough!

Let's take 2. first, shall we?
More to the point, without modern agronomy, the people who now live in most areas of the planet would have long ago starved to death... Not to put too fine a point on it, their survival is made possible by the prevalence of capitalism and industrialism.
(Are there other places for them...?)

Now to 1. I don't know what to say... Yes, that's probably true. But -- so what? It's the same point as 2. You apparently think there should be fewer people on this planet.
Why?
To please or accommodate you? (That's not a good enough reason, for me... ersi, as much as I like arguing with you, I'd not continence a near-extinction event for our species to make you happy!) Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself, for even suggesting it...?
The first point assumes that the population explosion of the last few centuries is a good thing in and of itself. This presupposition is silly enough not to argue with.
Hm.
Would you be the one to decide which "excess" humans need to be eliminated? I mean, so that the elect can prosper... :)
(My inclination is to assume that the "elect" won't prosper -and shouldn't- unless they can. And if the only way they can is to decimate (or worse...) the world's population, then the guillotine should be brought back: It's needed!)

Go back to your cave, and let the world get along as best it can. You won't help, or can't. Are you so immature that you'd begrudge anyone else doing so?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-23, 10:37:02

More to the point, without modern agronomy, the people who now live in most areas of the planet would have long ago starved to death... Not to put too fine a point on it, their survival is made possible by the prevalence of capitalism and industrialism.
(Are there other places for them...?)

You ignore the important aspect of population explosion. Without modern agronomy (and appetite-fomenting capitalism in general) the population growth would have been much more moderate and contained. The people whose starvation worries you would not have been born into the conditions that would have made them starve.

Anyway, given our modern agronomy, why is a quarter of the population of the globe starving as we speak?


Now to 1. I don't know what to say... Yes, that's probably true. But -- so what? It's the same point as 2.

No. Your two points are not the same. They are the same maybe given your false presuppositions, but I don't share them.


You apparently think there should be fewer people on this planet. Why?

The same as overeating (beyond the capacity of the body to digest it), overpolluting (beyond the capacity of the nature to recover), etc., there's also overpopulation.


To please or accommodate you? (That's not a good enough reason, for me... ersi, as much as I like arguing with you, I'd not continence a near-extinction event for our species to make you happy!) Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself, for even suggesting it...?

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I am suggesting it? There's a difference between suggesting (1) a sustainable relationship between economy and ecology so that people could live while letting nature live, because nature is what we live on, which is what I recommend, and (2) extinction or extermination of humanity, which I don't recommend. In fact, recommending unsustainable economic practices - as you are - is a pretty straightforward endorsement of building up the conditions that will eventually lead to an abrupt cut of the humanity from its base of nourishment, and this would be disastrous given the current overpopulation. So, you should be doubly ashamed.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-23, 17:25:52
Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I am suggesting it?

Don't you get it? The American Right are simple minded. It's all or nothing. Humanity or nature. Recommendations such as yours (or mine with advancing beyond the need for fossil fuels, thus achieving economic growth and a healthier environment) are beyond their comprehension. In their world, there is only black and white and not the many hues and shades that exist in reality.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-23, 23:24:25
So, you should be doubly ashamed.

Maybe not.
In fact we are discussing at a meta level, where Oakdale, when confronted with pure common sense options, feels to be betraying his inner system of beliefs and so he reacts at an increasingly suicidal way in terms of discussion.

I don't even care about his positions about the topic but I do care about why he's adopting such self destructive defense.
I do believe in a "common cause" about this problem and "common" only exists if we can transpose these barriers.

Better to oppose than to simply ignore. Ignoring is the adversary, the real one.
One can beat opposition, one can't beat alienation.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-24, 07:33:24
It seems to me that Sang, Belfrager and ersi all suffer from a common ailment: They believe that what is is deficient and needs to be "corrected" by their prejudices... :)

But they all have a deficiency in common, too: They think reality will accommodate them... If only they can gain enough political power.

And they think me delusional! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll say it again: If the CAGW hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, why do so many still insist that measures be taken -indeed, draconian measures!- to avert a fantasy predicted by a failed theory?!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-24, 11:57:37
I'll say it again:

Please don't, you can't turn false into truth just by repetition over and over again...
Or can you?  Applying for an Alchemist of Logic? :lol:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-24, 15:05:05
why do so many still insist that measures be taken -indeed, draconian measures!-

And yet my suggestions are free market capitalism. Invent the better technology, make money, hire thousands of people and thereby improve the economy. Not a draconian measure in sight :) Again with the myopic black/white thinking and with not reading what I actually said.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-25, 05:32:18
And yet my suggestions are free market capitalism. Invent the better technology, make money, hire thousands of people and thereby improve the economy. Not a draconian measure in sight  :)
If that were true, no impediments exist (...other than lack of ability). So: Why are government subsidies and punitive regulations required? Why is an international treaty needed to stifle or cripple a dying technology?
Shouldn't the good ideas and their implementation simply win? :)

I still think you're in permanent "fantasy" mode, Sang... Just because something's possible doesn't mean it is practicable.
But I'd bet you'd fall back to the Wimpy technique: "I'd gladly pay on Thursday for a hamburger today!"
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-25, 16:34:57
You're hopeless. At this point, I'm meant defend what I never advocated. :faint:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-25, 16:36:52
Shouldn't the good ideas and their implementation simply win?  :)

No shit, Sherlock and that's what I called for. Any treaty is completely independent of anything I called for. You also make the fatal mistake as far as this argument goes in assuming that I give a rat's flea-infested ass about individuals and international organizations that you mentioned before. You drop the name of some climate scientist that in the Right's mind is discredited, which might be correct or not, but I seriously don't care. What I do care about is seeing  this smog, note we get a failing grade for ozone pollution  (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/las-vegas-valley-gets-f-ozone-pollution) and I see a private way to make that happen without draconian regulations. So what's the problem? Well part of the problem is you make up positions for me, based on a lot of false assumptions.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-27, 05:03:24
From your cited source, Sang:
Quote
"The air in Las Vegas is certainly cleaner than when we started the 'State of the Air' report 14 years ago," Amy Beaulieu, director of programs at the American Lung Association in Nevada, said in a statement.

"Even though Las Vegas experienced increases in unhealthy days of high ozone, the air quality is still better compared to a decade ago."

Despite the low marks for ozone, the community continues to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health standards for the pollutant, though just barely, said Dennis Ransel, planning manager for the Clark County Department of Air Quality.
"What we really worry about is how the EPA characterizes us. That's the real boss," he said.
But while he quibbles with some of the criteria the American Lung Association uses to arrive at its rankings, Ransel supports the overall message.
"It creates publicity and awareness that dirty air isn't good for people," he said of the association's annual report. "The point is pollution is a serious problem."

How so? I'd ask... Pollution is a serious problem, when it's less and less a problem?
I'd guess it's a "serious problem" for non-governmental groups and government bureaucrats who focus on such, that there's little to nothing to worry about... :)

I still don't understand what your interest is, in this topic, Sang -- other than the given: Bashing what you think are "conservative" positions.

But I especially liked this, near the end of the piece:
Quote
California cities dominated the list of places with the dirtiest air. The six worst for ozone and the seven worst for year-round particulate pollution were all in the Golden State.

Two things catch my attention:
One, the conflation of ozone and "particulate matter" is scientifically unfounded.
And, two, California has taken the most stringent measures to curb "pollution" of every sort... So, why are we still the worst? :)

Again, I ask: What is your position on the topic of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
And what -if anything- do you think should be the role of a supranational organization to avert its horrible consequences? :) (Yes, I assume your position to be -- prostate!)

As with ersi and Belfrager, so with you: Your view of the science is occluded by other and opaque films... So, you don't care to read the scientific papers; you don't care to engage in debate; you don't want to exchange ideas:
You only want to win, politically... I can see no other reason for your involvement, here.
------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: Nevada is a separate state and Las Vegas is a -- Oh! I get it: The world has to accommodate your sensitivities... Or you'll stop providing prostitutes and slot machines! :)
Seriously, Sang: Why do you think your problem with lower atmosphere ozone is unique or even unusual? Is it even unnatural? :(
Show me the science... (Keep your opinion polls to yourself, and others like you. BUT DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR HILLARY! :) )
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Midnight Raccoon link=topic=109.msg47662#msg47662 date=1445762212[quote
https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg47645#msg47645Shouldn't the good ideas and their implementation simply win?   :)
No shit, Sherlock and that's what I called for.In other words: You propose nothing, you oppose nothing... But you still like to insult people... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-27, 05:39:09
I'd guess it's a "serious problem" for non-governmental groups and government bureaucrats who focus on such, that there's little to nothing to worry about...

You mean besides aggravating health problems for people with respiratory and heart issues? I'm not sure if it's even possible for you to give a more a biased and ignorant response. How is it possible to not know smog is a major health issue? Seriously.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-27, 05:57:35
(Sorry: formatting problems...) But:
You mean besides aggravating health problems for people with respiratory and heart issues? I'm not sure if it's even possible for you to give a more a biased and ignorant response. How is it possible to not know smog is a major health issue? Seriously.
Well, having lived in '60s Las Angeles for a while -- I think I know better than you!
But -seriously, dude!- what would you have us do?
Smog is, in almost all places in the United States, not a major health issue... (Should we, if it would help!, sacrifice Las Vegas -- to save a Chinese city?
Should Modesto become a pedestrian mall to save Las Vegas?
Are these alternatives in any way sensible?)
--------------------------
I assume that's more than enough to riffs off of --
Perhaps we should strip the Earth's atmosphere of all the gasses that are "dangerous" and see how well that works...! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your stated goals and the means likely to achieve them require no "political" action at all -- but you continue to argue...for what?
I wonder.
Perhaps you can enlighten me! (Ask your psychoanalyst... :) She might release some of your records to you. -- I assume you can and will read... [No: Actually, I doubt both! :) There you go: I've given you the obligatory "insult"... :) ])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also assume that you don't care about any of this: You only want your side to win; at least, that's what you've always shown me...
Convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-28, 02:14:17
I'll get back to when, and if, I somehow think your "arguments" even deserve a response. The health effects of ozone pollution are well known and have been for decades. This isn't even liberal or conservative. It just is. In what way is arguing that this pollution is okay even conservative? It isn't even politics that disagrees with you, it's my lungs and throat that do.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-10-28, 21:23:50

(Sorry: formatting problems...)

If you mean the horizontal lines you are trying to produce, here's a piece of code to help you out:
Code: [Select]

[hr]


It would do good to you to change the topic for a while. For example, try to describe your workflow on the desktop like here https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1425.msg46766#msg46766
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-29, 10:07:22
The Persian Gulf may become too hot to live in.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/world/persian-gulf-heat-climate-change/
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-29, 22:25:19
I've read the paper (and its supplemental...). Considerable emphasis should be placed upon that "may" -- the boundary conditions derived from three GCMs are of questionable validity.
But it's good to know that some RCMs being refined.

Thanks for the link.


More important than what might happen in the Arabian peninsula 50+ years from now...
Is what is being done to the American economy now. (http://wmbriggs.com/post/17155/)

There's a lot to consider; and much perfidy and self-serving bad faith to counteract. So:
On to Paris! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-30, 16:12:29
More important than what might happen in the Arabian peninsula 50+ years from now...
Is what is being done to the American economy now. (http://wmbriggs.com/post/17155/)

Hrm that article, " Wasn't the phlogiston theory of combustion the consensus at one time?" In the fucking 1600's, and centuries before the current  hypothetico-deductive model of the scientific method. AGW is wrong because people barely out of the middle ages believed something that was incorrect? The debunking of the consensus itself has been debunked. Oh well, attacking the exact percentage of the climatologists that agree with AGW has given the Righties a new windmill to tilt at. The majority of peer-reviewed papers on the subject still demonstrate that current climate change is man-made. (as noted before, we're actually in a period of reduced solar output. This means we should be in period of global cooling, not warming and there's nothing natural on the planet itself right now to cause global warming. What part of this is so hard to get?) I get way they attack the actual percentage. It's the strawman. Okay, I used a strawman myself by attacking when the author mentioned the phlogiston theory, but that was too retarded to ignore.

Ceres giving recommendations to insurance providers hardly seems to be damaging the economy at this time. One poster there complained that his home insurance premium had gone up. Could that have possibly been because of Sandy not far from there and had nothing to with Ceres?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-30, 16:24:28
Oh yeah, Oakdale, the "may" in all climate models is pretty well already understood. That's why multiple ones are run. :p some were way off, something deliberately going a worst case scenario, but others are more realistic. It's nearly impossible for any single model to include all possible variables. For instance, I don't believe the Persian Gulf model included the sun's behavior, so the region might become even hotter but not uninhabitable.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-30, 22:56:32
The debunking of the consensus itself has been debunked.
:) José Duarte disagrees (http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97)... (If you'll read his post, you'll understand. Or not; in which case your college should refund your tuition.)


Oh yeah, Oakdale, the "may" in all climate models is pretty well already understood.
It seems not to be... And the reason for running model ensembles is best understood via the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
These are supposed to be (...intended to be) physical models, aren't they?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-31, 20:01:45
:)  José Duarte disagrees (http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97)... (If you'll read his post, you'll understand. Or not; in which case your college should refund your tuition.)

Good thing you don't have tuition that needs refunded. The main guy that "debunked" the consensuses had to redact his own findings and his attempt was more valid that Duarte's silliness. Scroll up to find it, I'm not bothered to repeat it. Further, Duarte was incorrect about how the figure was arrived, so perhaps he's the one that needs a refund. I understand him in ways that you can't begin to comphrend. Either way, the 97% figure itself is not important and remains a strawman. Oh yeah, there was more than one survey that arrived at the conclusion that there is a general consensus among climatologists that the current global warming is manmade. Duarte and fellow travelers only want to single out Cook. Why is that? Oh yeah, and why did Duarte not link to Cook's actual study, but to a search form? I'm also noting Duarte is PHD candidate in social psychology and not a climatologists and that he's just some random blog you googled up :p

Also he some "genius" things about about non-climate papers being included in the consensuses. In fact, it was the debunkers that were caught doing that and had to admit to it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-10-31, 21:34:40
Best Way to Brush Your Teeth? Experts Disagree -...
Type to enter text
well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/best-way-to-brush-your...
Type to enter text

Aug 14, 2014 · When it comes to the best way to brush your teeth, experts do not agree. British researchers surveyed 15 dental association guidelines in the United States ...
Oil rally over? Experts disagree - Yahoo Finance
finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-rally-over-experts-disagree...

Apr 26, 2015 · From Yahoo Finance: Oil is up over 30 percent since its low in March. One expert is predicting the rally will continue, but another says expect prices to ...
Body and health: When the Experts Disagree
body-health-diet.blogspot.com/.../when-experts-disagree.html

When the Experts Disagree: Even though I would think that by now we would be realizing that since a variety of diet approaches are safe and effective, the new ...
Appendix V: When Experts Disagree, Which Ones...
www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/app5.html

APPENDIX V WHEN EXPERTS DISAGREE WHICH ONES SHALL WE BELIEVE? It surely falls within human ability to find a way by which the scientific community, in full ...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-31, 21:50:53
...I expected no less mores from you, Sang! :)
Either way, the 97% figure itself is not important and remains a strawman. Oh yeah, there was more than one survey that arrived at the conclusion that there is a general consensus among climatologists that the current global warming is manmade. Duarte and fellow travelers only want to single out Cook. Why is that?

If the 97% figure is not important, and a strawman -- why do you continue to use it? :) Mere credulity, or a milder variant of The Big Lie technique of propaganda?
Yes, there have been a few "studies" reaching (a less compelling) conclusion of consensus among climate scientists... As Duarte says (elsewhere on his site (http://www.joseduarte.com/), a little more than half-way down the page, titled
Climate science is biased, but right)
Quote
Over the last few months, I've been alarmed by what I've discovered in looking into the research on the climate science consensus. There's clearly a consensus on AGW, but many of the research reports on the consensus are remarkably shoddy, clearly biased, and would not survive a social science review process. In some cases, the researchers seem to have no training in how to conduct such studies, because they're political activists, not researchers. Since the consensus will be there no matter what, it's amazing that people feel the need to inflate it, to rig it.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (2014) broke my heart, by releasing a wildly unscientific report that cherry-picked only the studies that gave it the inflated consensus figures it wanted -- many of which are so bad as to be inadmissable. When scientists want to review a body of research, they conduct a meta-analysis that includes all the research that meets certain criteria of rigor and validity. The AAAS strangely chose not to perform a meta-analysis -- they simply ignored most studies, and cherry-picked four studies that gave them the inflated, shock-value numbers they wanted. Among the four was an obsolete one-page study from 2004 that doesn't clearly describe its methods (Oreskes, 2004, yes, really, one page long). That is, they skipped past all the more recent and credible studies from the intervening decade (e.g. Harris (2007), Bray and van Storch (2008), and others) to reach all the way back to a junk study from 2004. I've never seen such behavior - we clearly can't do anything with mysterious one-pagers from 2004. This isn't what I expected.

It's clear that some climate scientists bring their politics into this. They leap to policy prescriptions and seem unaware of their ideological assumptions. Scientists are surprisingly not well-trained in separating ideological assumptions from descriptive facts, and don't seem to run bias-correction algorithms on themselves. Climate science displays many of the classic signs of groupthink, and the tenor of the debate is disturbingly hostile and malicious as a result.
Duarte is a "fellow traveler"? :)
Here's what he wrote following the above-quoted paragraphs:
Quote
That AGW is true has no inherent implications for policy. For one thing, severity or magnitude will matter. If the warming is only 1° C, that's a very different scenario than a 6° C change. Global warming is not a dichotomous or binary thing - it's a matter of degree, in every sense. You need to do some serious work to get from 1) AGW is true, to 2) Do something! We might value economic prosperity more than some increment of climate stasis. We'd also have to establish whether we owe the people of 2100 a very specific band of temperatures, and a very specific range of sea levels -- that's not obvious. We'd have to decide whether government should be an open-ended, unconstrained, intergenerational welfare-maximization engine, or a protector of individual rights on human lifespan timescales. There is a substantial body of evidence detailing the harms of giving government a coercive role in economic life -- see public choice theory, rent-seeking, regulatory capture, the knowledge problem, general economics, Hayek, Buchanan, Easterly, Cowen, Mankiw, Caplan, Epstein, the history of the 20th century, etc. (and many economists disagree with them -- I'm puzzled why economics isn't more unified.) There will be deep philosophical and ethical differences on whether we have the right to coerce billions of people for an unclear likelihood of preventing a 2-4 C increase in global mean surface temperatures by 2100. None of this is self-evident -- people will disagree.
It seems to me that your problem is with that last phrase: Disagreement with your views is anathema...
As with some prominent climate scientists, the Party Line must be toed! :) Carry on, Comrade! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Jaybro: But... But! Disagreement is not allowed! It's heretical... :)
Surely, you understand why that must be so in climatology, no?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-01, 19:29:46
And who the hell is Duarte anyway and who cares? Where's his own climate study? Oh, he doesn't have one, being a social psychology student. That's a like a geologist disputing a microbiologist over the structure of a newly discovered type of bacteria.

Yes, the 97% is a strawman because  the science behind AGW has not been successfully challenged so they resort to trying to lower the number of climatologists that agree with AGW. Yet, the "skeptics" are having a hard to time finding that the majority of people in the field disagreeing. Where's the study showing 47% (a random number) agree?

Where's another explanation to climate change that makes any sense at all? That's what I need from you and the only thing I'll accept. I don't need some random blog, but a peer reviewed published academic paper from a respected journal.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-01, 21:01:46

Where's another explanation to climate change that makes any sense at all?

The other explanation is that it's a reification!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-01, 22:22:36
I have a suspicion that NO other explanation would be acceptable to our resident raccoon. He could have a glacier advancing on Las Vegas, only 5 miles away--- and still wouldn't listen to anything except "97% Consensus that AGW is real".

That's really the problem with this whole discussion. Reality has nothing to do with it--- it's all about politics and position papers and getting funding from various sources. Right now---- choose your sources. One side says ice in the arctic and antarctic regions is disappearing at a frightening pace--- the other side says there's MORE ice rather than less. My problem is the same as yours--- unable to go there and measure it for myself, I have to take "experts" word for it. Both sides have reason and to spare to fudge things to get the results they want, and you and I can only take their word for it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-02, 04:03:30
Where's another explanation to climate change that makes any sense at all? That's what I need from you and the only thing I'll accept.
For the most part, natural variability covers it better than the enhanced CO2 forcing... We have -given modern proxie studies- more than a hundred thousand years of data (remember the Keeling paper I linked to...). This is not to say that atmospheric CO2 has no effect on global (or regional) temperatures; but merely that the current emphasis in "the field of climatology" (which had to throw out how many hundreds of years' observations, to accommodate this control knob theory...) has set it back a hundred years or so -- albeit, while making quite a few careers and very many lucrative government jobs!
Of course, when you say "makes any sense at all" what you mean is "that we can control" -- or am I wrong about that? :)
Yes, the 97% is a strawman because  the science behind AGW has not been successfully challenged so they resort to trying to lower the number of climatologists that agree with AGW.
This statement (and others quite similar...) is one of the reasons I don't take you seriously: That paper was not climate science, it was sociology -- your major, if I remember correctly! And you don't care how bad it was, as long as you can use it to support your side of the argument...

The theory of CO2-forced CAGW refutes itself, by the comparison of its predictions with widespread and better and better observations...

BTW: Duarte is a legitimate social scientist. (I can't say -at least not here :)- what you are. But I can say that you are wrong, if you think Cook, et al.'s 97% paper was acceptable social science...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-02, 23:17:40
BTW: Duarte is a legitimate social scientist.

So he determines what's climate changing....  :zzz:
And we are the ones accused of having a political agenda....
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-03, 00:17:33
So he determines what's climate changing....   :zzz:
No, of course not! (And he agrees with AGW theory -- which you could have read...) He does -as a social scientist- get to call BS on social science studies so bad that charges of fraud as well as incompetence are creditably made.
But perhaps that point is too complicated, for some. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might like this post at Judith Curry's site: Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II (http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/12/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science-part-ii/#more-20242)
(It's not a long nor technical post...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-03, 20:17:02
You might like this post at Judith Curry's site: Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II (http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/12/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science-part-ii/#more-20242)

Or Part I: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/ (http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/)
None of that is surprising, is it? Loss of funding or a position makes people think.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-03, 20:59:00
What does it make one think of -- primarily?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-03, 23:10:40
(It's not a long nor technical post...)

Maybe it's why you like it...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-04, 00:23:36
Perhaps, Bel. But it's more likely why I posted it here... :)
Did you have a comment, about the post's topic and info?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-04, 10:40:07
One side says ice in the arctic and antarctic regions is disappearing at a frightening pace--- the other side says there's MORE ice rather than less.

It's Oakdale that wants to keep bringing up the 97% and I'm the one saying it's not relevant, however the methodology used to debunk that hypothesis is wrong. The number is arrived at by counting the number of climate studies that support AGW and those that refute it. This is obviously not going the same percentage that actually agree; but it is safe to say the majority in the field do agree - that we have a general agreement that it is occurring. That's the basic definition of a consensuses. I'm not the one being unreasonable here, but we have Oakdale thinking that somehow the last paragraph of a social psychology student (not a climatologist) saying that some people will disagree is important.  That means very little. Take any subject and people will choose sides.

If the ice is advancing or retreating is not that difficult. In the Arctic, the ice appears to be retreating. In the Antarctic, there's evidence of advancement. In both cases, that's the total amount of ice and not getting into it's increasing in this region but decreasing in another. The reason is the Arctic is largely ocean and the ocean acts as a heat sink for the atmosphere. The Antarctic is a continent and land doesn't behave the same way. Having said that  does report record high temperatures for Antarctica  (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=323http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=323) (although it goes through various scenarios of what comprises the Antarctic.) This is just a quick hypothesis but warmer air can hold more moisture. That can easily led to more precipitation, and therefore more ice and snow and a larger icesheet. A larger icesheet means more Albedo, which could help offset human activity for global temperatures.

You and Oakdale want to act like some radical climate change alarmist that won't listen to reason. That's far from the case. As noted, the blogs offered by Oakdale have been of ridiculously low quality (ludicrous enough to attempt to draw an analogy between a middle-ages notion and modern climate science :faint: Frankly, that comparison was so stupid that it was impossible to take the rest of the article seriously and he offers no counter science. In fact, all I've been saying to do is join the Third Industrial Revolution (ie creating good paying jobs, not destroying them) by developing newer, clear technologies that don't result in the smog and pollution we have today. That doesn't mean penalizing petrochemicals and all-gasoline engines for their very existence. It does mean we can do better.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-04, 11:41:20
But perhaps that point is too complicated, for some.

And my position is too complicated for you.
In Cook's 2013 paper (that has been twisted into a strawman), which can be found  Doesn't exactly say 97 percent  of climatologists agree. You can read the full article, obviously. But here's the abstract.

(http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf)
Quote

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate
change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
As you can see 2/3 of the articles don't even express a position on that subject. But among those that do, 97.1 agree. Duarte claims that a number of those 97% include marketing surveys and other nonsense. But he merely links to a search page and I'm not finding marketing surveys in Cook's report, at all. That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but as a PHD student he should know to tell the reader exactly how to reproduce his results, such as exactly what search terms he used, what he selected from the dropdowns, etc. Yet, you want to say I take issue with his blog because I disagree. No, I take issue with it because it's worthless. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-04, 23:23:13
Did you have a comment, about the post's topic and info?

No, I don't and I will not have until you stop behaving as a little children.
I know perfectly what are the problems of science, the problems of funding science, the problems of "trendy" science and anything that your not to much wide imagination can think about.

One thing you can be sure Oakdale, I will not engage into your pathetic show. While I publish a list of one hundred plus all-over-the-world recognized scientific institutions you keep on digging, for tenths of posts, into more and more obscure nulity pseudo "scientists".

Keep on digging, it will not save your beloved American polluting industry. As for the jobs it creates, aren't you the champions of the world of social mobility? They can surely get a better job, a job that don't kill the other people - and themselves. Because that's the only thing you've been really talking about.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-05, 03:28:09
And my position is too complicated for you.
In Cook's 2013 paper (that has been twisted into a strawman), which can be found [...] Doesn't exactly say 97 percent  of climatologists agree. You can read the full article, obviously.
I wanted to talk about the paper (which I linked to and, of course, read...) years ago, Sang; you and most others demurred. Sobeit, I thought. But you brought it up again, by repeating the meme -- and then denying that it means anything, defending the paper (...because you believe the result, and -hence- refuse to critically read it), and denigrating anyone who does read it critically!
You can't have your meme and call it meaningless too! :)

But you kind-of have to, don't you?

So (pray, tell): What do you believe about AGW? (Since my surmises, based upon what you've posted, are decried by you: Perhaps you would correct me! Don't tell me where or why you think I've gone wrong -- tell me what you believe, not who you disagree with or disrespect. Thanks -- if you can do that; if you can't, I'd wonder why you post in this thread...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-05, 03:41:16
While I publish a list of one hundred plus all-over-the-world recognized scientific institutions you keep on digging, for tenths of posts, into more and more obscure nulity pseudo "scientists".
In other words "Group-think and position papers by bureaucrats" is what settles scientific questions: When a sufficiently large number of gate-keepers can stifle dissent, science stops!
That circumstance seems to predominate climate science, now. But it can't --if science is to be practiced-- continue in that vein...
(Of course, the tyros of climatology are having a difficult time maintaining their orthodoxy! Some scientists still want to do science, rather than support an advocacy position -- even if they agree with it.)

BTW: How did these "scientific institutions" you listed arrive at their position? Do you care? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-05, 06:37:22
BTW: How did these "scientific institutions" you listed arrive at their position? Do you care?  :)

They all get together in a secret meeting and decided to irritate you. I told them to not do that but they didn't listen to me...  :(
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-05, 06:38:32
Quote
The combination of these two factors [outcomes that are potentially
catastrophic in nature and probability distributions with fat tails
] may lead to situations in which focusing on central tendencies is completely misleading for policy analysis. In a series of papers, Martin Weitzman (see especially Weitzman 2009 (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/modelinginterpretingeconomics.pdf?m=1360041835)) has proposed a dramatically different conclusion from standard analysis in what he has called the Dismal Theorem. In the extreme case, the combination of fat tails, unlimited exposure, and high risk aversion implies that the expected loss from certain risks such as climate change is unbounded and we therefore cannot perform standard optimization calculations or cost‐benefit analyses.
(source (http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=162110071127121103064030072088102066004059040068032056094121088028064072085086030007055059004009047058028085018083005067000099107046095015074027080087095015124077095086060021012028122093077100125098085002010112092118010072020015121124122112029085122&EXT=pdf))
My take on this: "Standard" Precautionary Principle reasoning... :)

Does anyone disagree? (Sang, Belfrager, ersi...? :) Er, Jimbro?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: Would anyone care to rate this:
Quote

With climate change as prototype example, this paper analyzes
the  implications  of  structural  uncertainty  for  the  economics  of  low-
probability,  high-impact  catastrophes.  Even  when  updated  by  Bayesian
learning, uncertain structural parameters induce a critical "tail fattening"
of  posterior-predictive  distributions.  Such  fattened  tails  have  strong  implications  for  situations,  like  climate  change,  where  a  catastrophe  is
theoretically possible because prior knowledge cannot place sufficiently
narrow bounds on overall damages. This paper shows that the economic
consequences  of  fat-tailed  structural  uncertainty  (along  with  unsureness
about  high-temperature  damages)  can  readily  outweigh  the  effects  of
discounting in climate-change policy analysis.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-05, 18:17:25
But you brought it up again, by repeating the meme -- and then denying that it means anything, defending the paper

You still don't get it. Offering criticism to Duarte's and others offering isn't the same thing as defending the percentage. But where's the counter survey? One was attempted Benny Peiser, but he had to redact his own findings because he included nonsense that Duarte accused Cook of including, only in his case the non-peer reviewed material sometimes wasn't even an academic paper but opinion pieces and whatnot.. But even his counter attempt resulted a majority of papers showing damn near a consensus and he had to admit to "a majority."

But that majority was not the result of "group think" but repeated tests and experiments both in the lab and field. Understand these were not not just computer models resulting in error from imputing the same or similar variables and therefore getting the same/similar result. I'm not sure how to get you understand that since you confuse in the "stupidity" thread that you viewed acceptance of the AGW theory as "liberal" , although you don't view it as a confession. This isn't liberalism. AGW is outcome of multiple independent experiments offering the probable conclusion that human emissions are causing the average global temperature to rise. Again, I have to tell you these are greenhouse gases doing as expected. The amount of warming and the speed of it are the matter of scientific debate, the fact that it's happening not so much among actual climatologists (which doesn't include people like the fore-mentioned Peiser, a social anthropologist yet one of the leading "skeptics" that appear to know little more than you or I about the climate)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-05, 23:45:10
Sang, Belfrager, ersi...?

I'm out.
I hope that I can continue to read your nice collaboration the moment you realize the ridiculous of pretending to be the D. Quixote of anti-climate changing. Oh, I forgot that you don't even understand D. Quixote.

Maybe a nice carbon factory can move right next to you and illuminate and inspire you with what you desire to others. :)
Stay well under a tonne of coal.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-06, 00:11:10

Sang, Belfrager, ersi...?

I'm out.
I hope that I can continue to read your nice collaboration the moment you realize the ridiculous of pretending to be the D. Quixote of anti-climate changing. Oh, I forgot that you don't even understand D. Quixote.

Maybe a nice carbon factory can move right next to you and illuminate and inspire you with what you desire to others. :)
Stay well under a tonne of coal.


It's the strangest thing. We've been moving Heaven and Earth to try to make what coal we do burn cleaner. The output isn't anywhere near what it was a few decades ago, as we try to find cleaner coal and cleaner ways to burn it. It's never good enough for you though.

We've also been searching for long-term replacement for coal. Nuclear power has advantages (but also, to be fair, a few glaring problems). A major portion of the electric power that feeds Northern Illinois is nuclear powered.

Oil and natural gas play their parts too. When I worked at a hammer-shop, the boilers that made steam for the hammers were gas-fired. Hardly any visible smoke from the chimneys unless it was cold, then you saw water vapor up there.

Windfarms are around too. I pass by a big wind operation near Remington, Indiana any number of times, there's another large outfit near DeKalb, Illinois-- covers probably five and a half miles of farmland.

In the meantime, I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a photo of Beijing where the air wasn't so thick you could cut it with a knife, and where walking out of doors didn't require you to wear some sort of mask so you didn't breathe in all that soot. Rumor has it that parts of India are nearly as bad.

What do I hear out of Belfrager about these places?

(Crickets.) Gotta beat up on America some more.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-11-06, 01:34:02
On Friday night a well know former government minister stated on a television programme that in Antarctica there are now billions of tons more ice than before and the information came from an indepth article in the Daily Telegraph.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-06, 04:38:18
I still wonder why Sang posts in this thread: He claims to have no opinion about AGW (other than knee-jerk disagreement with supposedly Republican views...), no confidence in the IPCC's prescriptions, and no arguments to support government action (in fact, he claims to be opposed to such).
If that's all true, what does he argue here?
I've asked, repeatedly. He either can't or won't answer.

BTW, Sang: You live in a high desert which has deliberately been made a tourist mecca... And you complain about smog? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-06, 09:20:22

I still wonder why Sang posts in this thread: He claims to have no opinion about AGW (other than knee-jerk disagreement with supposedly Republican views...), no confidence in the IPCC's prescriptions, and no arguments to support government action (in fact, he claims to be opposed to such).
If that's all true, what does he argue here?
I've asked, repeatedly. He either can't or won't answer.

I wonder why you post in this thread. You say that you have something to say about the science, but you in fact go on exclusively about the politics.

Nobody agrees with the politics of the governments here. Nobody. And nobody agrees with the manipulation of the science to suit some agenda either. Nobody.

But this doesn't mean that the polar caps are not observably melting, that coal and oil industry aren't polluting the air and water and soil, etc. Whereas you say that since the government wants to limit the CO2 emissions and that's bad for the economy, therefore there's no such thing as global warming or climate change in any sense, scientifically or politically. Nobody rational can agree with that either.

So, why are you posting in this thread? To reveal the truth? Isn't truth a reification according to your system?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-06, 23:47:04
What do I hear out of Belfrager about these places?

(Crickets.) Gotta beat up on America some more.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.610;msg=48085)

What you ear from me is the reality, that your country/government/ yourself/whatever are amongst the biggest responsible for damaging the planet.
Thanks to your country representatives, no country can be forced to obey to pollution reducing targets. If the USA don't do it, why should Uzbekistan do it...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-11-07, 02:50:18
So how do all those that claim we are being fried explain all that extra ice in  Antarctica?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-07, 03:04:52

So how do all those that claim we are being fried explain all that extra ice in  Antarctica?

A number of reasons. Reading the full article usually helps https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

Another reason is that United States and Europe are both on the northern hemisphere :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-07, 04:42:06
Quote
"Our models are improving, but they're far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models."
I'd agree; and add that particular variables thought to be crucially important are being seen as less so -- perhaps even inconsequential... :)
The odd comment about Europe and the U.S. from ersi is, what? A complaint that most of what everyone calls science originates there?
What is the mystic prescription for a problem that may not even exist? :) Om!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-08, 18:54:46
No mysticism required for the increase in Antarctic SEA ice, many articles fail to point that out. The article Ersi offered provides several hypothesis to be tested, which is what science does but seems to provide increased emphasis a low pressure system in the region.  It's been pointed out elsewhere that the Southern Ocean's salinity has been decreasing. This makes the water easier to freeze.

You'll also note that overall the amount of sea ice in world has been decreasing, not increasing because of ice loss in the Arctic. Oakdale is correct that variables have been missed, but many of those are the skeptic side when they try in vain to call climate change a myth. The first paragraph is one such variable they deem inconsequential.

The consistency of reading that show global warming is another one in their disingenuous crusade, which often still leads straight back to oil money.This includes  ranking members of the House Energy Committee, both Republicans taking oil money  (http://www.ibtimes.com/congressional-energy-chairs-form-fundraising-committee-rake-oil-gas-cash-they-push-2170149) at an especially disturbing time that creates the appearance of buying influence.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-09, 08:46:30
No mysticism required for the increase in Antarctic SEA ice, many articles fail to point that out.
No, they don't "fail" to mention it, any more than they fail to mention the Tooth Fairie's influence. No article I've read mentioned it...  But ersi and Belfrager mention little else than a "mystical" ecology. :)
Oakdale is correct that variables have been missed, but many of those are the skeptic side when they try in vain to call climate change a myth.
"Climate change" is a vacuous term, and "myth" in this context is a strawman: Is the climate changing for the better or worse? Is it surprising that the earth is warming, coming out of an ice age? (Would you prefer the opposite?) Sang, your style of argumentation is -- lacking in supportable premises.
(At least Belfrager openly admits his appeal to authority! Since he seems to have nothing else, that's probably wise... :) )
What evidence is there, to support the contention that CO2 (and/or other greenhouse gasses produced by modern industry...) is driving a calamitous alteration of the earth's atmospheric "system"?
(I mean, besides the predictions of GCMs which have failed to be supported by observation... One does not need a full-blown theory to put in their place to say that they have failed; one only needs to compare their predictions with observation -- so, you can skip that canard! Either they are skillful or not...)

By all means (legal and non-coercive, please...), advocate "clean" and "green" technologies; and promote non-polluting energy sources. But keep national and international governmental bodies from applying the Precautionary Principle to everything -- but themselves!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-09, 23:08:41
Since he seems to have nothing else, that's probably wise...  :)  )

Yes, nothing I have. Just one thousand scientific organizations that calls you a morron.
Don't take scientific insults too much into consideration, always defend your right to ignorance. Very American Life Style.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-10, 00:12:05
Just one thousand scientific organizations that calls you a morron.
They call me, personally a moron? :) How soon, I wonder, does the Inquisition start? Heresy must be punished, of course! And heretical opinions denounced, in the strongest terms...
What I was implying, Bel, is that you seem to know no other path to knowledge -- excepting, perhaps, divine Inspiration.
--------------------------------------
BTW: Is anyone else still reading Longhurst's book (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-final.pdf)? (Oh, ye of little attention span... :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-11, 08:11:36
How soon, I wonder, does the Inquisition start? Heresy must be punished, of course!

Poor victim, subject to the Inquisition and destined to be stretched on the rack. Perhaps they'll restart the bonfires, if you know what I mean :rolleyes: In fact, other opinions are always welcome, if supported by scientific data and pretty much all of it confirms that CO2 emissions from human activities is responsible for climate change.

Studies trying to show other reasons for the climate change have come up empty or were very sloppy (to the point of trying to say increased solar activity is the culprit, when in fact, solar activity has decreased...:rolleyes: That would have been a good and convincing  explanation - if  the sun wasn't doing the opposite.) Where are the viable hypotheses and theories to indicate natural causes? :crickets: Oh that's right, we're "just" coming out an ice age a mere twelve thousand years ago, while ignoring climatic events such as the Little Ice Age and other times of global cooling and the fact the warming trend accelerated with industrialization and its emissions. Others claim climate changed paused in 1998, how fast you can debunk that is limited only by how fast you can enter search terms into a search engine. I would be ashamed to be a skeptic and try to make that claim.

Still others claim a climate conspiracy. Gibberish. How much more money can be made by doing studies for the petroleum industry to claim its products are environmentally sound? Believe it or not, Exxon-Mobile dwarfs the Sierra Club and has far deeper pockets :p In short, there's little motivation for the climatology profession to perpetuate a climate change as a lie. That doesn't discount the possibility of corrupted or otherwise incorrect science, but again remember the attempted "skeptic" studies that were even more so and the climate studies that have come out right on point. Many the climatologists are trying to get publicity? Exxon-Mobile would publicize the hell out of studies that come out in its favor as part of PR campaign. It would seem that if one was a Climatology professor, far more fame and fortune would await being a so-called skeptic. You'd probably even land guest appearances on Fox, even more $$$. Who cares what the IPCC thinks when you can trade a Ford for a Ferrari, if you only care about money?

All that being pretty well self-evident to an informed person, I'm still demanding actual science and preferably from an actual climatologist that can demonstrate CO2 emissions from human activities are not to blame. That isn't demanding that you prove a negative, just looking for an alternative explanation that makes sense and can be discussed on intelligent terms sans snark.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-11, 22:10:34
How soon, I wonder, does the Inquisition start? Heresy must be punished, of course! And heretical opinions denounced, in the strongest terms...

Another one playing Galileo...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-12, 05:55:41
Science has tried very had, to escape the trap of consensus thinking. You're not helping...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-13, 02:12:45
And yet it doesn't approach consensus thinking. The consensus is over that AGW is happening, not necessarily how much or the exact impacts. Accusing science of group think only serves to make yourself look uninformed. Meanwhile, I'm still eagerly awaiting any actual data from you.

ps, do see the irony? You accuse science of consensus think while at the same time denying that a consensus exists.....
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-13, 07:17:53
The consensus is over that AGW is happening, not necessarily how much or the exact impacts.
Does what we can actually quantify mean:
I'm still confused about what you believe, Sang. If it's the trivial "human activity affects the environment" or even "modern fossil fuel economies are warming the earth's climate" -- your own "by how much" brings you back to what I'd call science...
Which -it seems to me- you'd like to see stopped: We have a consensus! Case closed.
I don't think science can work that way...
Likewise. I don't think you have (...or if not you, a great many who wield power in this "debate"...) a coherent plan; at least, not one they'd be willing to share openly.
How, I ask, will we find out the effects of CO2 as the result of burning fossil fuels?
(Might we continue to do science...? Nah! We got us a Consensus! We don' need more than our stinkin' badges!)

There have been many studies focused upon this. There have been little to no such showing anything that matches recent observations... (Of course, "observations" have to be adjusted -- to accommodate the models which don't jibe with them... But -ahem!- the proxies won't cooperate! Oops! But -I ask you, as someone who appreciates science- shouldn't the models be fixed, rather than the data?)
Of course, the expected global warming got lost in the oceans! (Had not real scientists considered three quarters of the earth's surface, when ostensibly studying the global climate?
(Again, I ask: What supports the contention that there is a global climate? :) )
--------------------------------------------------------
Sang, I don't care about any measurement of "consensus". (You found the one social scientist who attempted to use the same silly measurement; and he failed! Much to your glee! His study was better than your 97% ones; but it was still silly: How many papers before Einstein's predicted the atom bomb? How many gave us a new understanding of space/time? I only care about the science and the bizarre political effects of the activist science...
Consensus is what people do, when they haven't a clue...
----------------------------
Let's get back to this topic, after the Paris confab! (Will they do cospaly? :) ) You try so very hard to sound reasonable about this... But you always pole-vault from reasonable to extreme -and unsupported- positions...
Thanks for playing "Lefty-Righty" again! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-13, 08:43:51

Accusing science of group think only serves to make yourself look uninformed.

This is putting it too mildly. If one refuses to be informed by science in a scientific matter, then one is uninformed, scientifically. But one may be informed on the topic by something else instead, say, politics :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-13, 09:02:27
ersi, when matters scientific become so politicized that scientists are pressured to either agree with the consensus or quit doing science -- well, you get Lysenko-ism.
You remember that, right? :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the AGW (I mean, CAGW...) trope so entices you? Is it the advent of a new apocalypse? :)
If your country (region) can't figure out how to deal with the pollution you've created -- what? You want other countries far away to "feel your pain" and pay you for being stupid? :)

Do you really think that the world would be better off, reverting to feudalism? :) (I ask, because I don't see you offering anything else...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-13, 09:32:11
Sang: Let me 'splain somethin' to you, Lucy: If a scientific theory predicts, and those predictions fail to happen; that means that the theory is wrong.
Of course, if a "scientific" theory doesn't predict -- it isn't a scientific theory...

Why does the IPCC view of AGW capture your attention? (You aren't likely to have read their reports -- at least, not beyond the Summary for Policymakers.) I do understand that climatology is a difficult subject; it is fairly new, as seen by the tyros!
Are you just prone to apocalyptic scenarios? Or are you simply willing to use anything to support your political agenda?

I know what you've said: Free enterprise! Green technologies!
What, I ask, is keeping you from achieving such...? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-13, 12:45:11

What about the AGW (I mean, CAGW...) trope so entices you?

What makes you think it's just a trope? In what scientific and non-ideological way did you arrive at this idea?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-13, 15:08:00
Sang: Let me 'splain somethin' to you, Lucy: If a scientific theory predicts, and those predictions fail to happen; that means that the theory is wrong.
Of course, if a "scientific" theory doesn't predict -- it isn't a scientific theory...


Let me 'splain something to you, big guy. It isn't just predications, it's actual observed temperatures.  But having said that, pop quiz, wise guy. Tell me which IPCC projections were within 0.1 degrees C of the actual global temperature and which were further away and "'splain' " why. What captures my attention more than the IPCC itself is the trope that "the predications" were wrong, when in fact many of them were pretty damn accurate (in some years a bit wrong for underestimating the amount of warming, but regardless of long-term climate change there are warmer years and cooler years.) Can you answer that, or does that involve checking too much actual science for you in lieu of political blogs?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-13, 23:16:49
And yet it doesn't approach consensus thinking. The consensus is over that AGW is happening, not necessarily how much or the exact impacts. Accusing science of group think only serves to make yourself look uninformed. Meanwhile, I'm still eagerly awaiting any actual data from you.

Oakdale is not interested in that, he only wants some attention. And a lot of attention we've been giving to him.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-14, 03:24:29
it's actual observed temperatures
Apparently, you've neither read chapter 4 of Longhurst's book nor followed the topic elsewhere. (I was relieved, when I read that our modern buoys specially designed to measure ocean temperatures -SSTs- were "corrected" to conform to the engine-intake and bucket-over-the-side figures from the previous two centuries! Way to go! team CAGW.

You do know (don't you?) that the mere correlation of atmospheric CO2 and "measured" surface temperature doesn't explain much of anything -- except in a Cargo Cult sort of way?
The reason I discount alarmist claims of catastrophic global warming predicated upon rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is in part empirical and in part theoretical: To start with the latter, the models mostly focusing on CO2 predicted much more warming, and at a faster rate, than we've actually seen; to me, this means that their focus is, at best, blurry. (A theory that is dis-confirmed is wrong, and needs fixing.) The theory is deficient...
About the former: I'm sure the alarmists will attempt to "adjust" the data you and I have lived through, to save the theory...in 2050, if not sooner! :)
Tell me which IPCC projections were within 0.1 degrees C of the actual global temperature and which were further away and "'splain' " why? Blah, blah, blah...
There's no credible justification for that degree of accuracy; certainly not, given the massaging of the data we have...

Really: I don't understand why the usual suspects don't simply return to their earlier trope... "The models don't make predictions; they present scenarios!" That works, in Hollywood; and in the liberal press. What more is needed? :)

...Oh. Science!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the good news/bad news category, there's this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/04/nasa-can-now-detect-worrying-ocean-circulation-changes-from-space/?postshare=7601447003678401)... (HT, Judith Curry -- just another "political" blogger.) And, perhaps good news: this (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/2243/2015/esdd-6-2243-2015.html). And this (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28468-growing-corals-turn-water-more-acidic-without-suffering-damage/).

Sang, would you like to show those info-mercials of polar bears stranded on free-floating ice again? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-14, 12:02:47
How do you know X? how do you know how do you know X? how do you know how do you know how do you know X?
Replace X for climatic change (and a few other things). Oakdale, you sound like a broken record.

You've been very useful to me, when people don't believe me when I say that there are Americans against stopping climatic change I always point them to your writings. You spare me a lot of of work, thanks. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-14, 17:04:48
The reason I discount alarmist claims of catastrophic global warming predicated upon rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is in part empirical and in part theoretical: To start with the latter, the models mostly focusing on CO2 predicted much more warming, and at a faster rate, than we've actually seen; to me, this means that their focus is, at best, blurry.
But did you know it's not all alarmist? Overall the science is sound and further, you're caught up in projections instead of empirical data of what's already happened, not adjusted in any way. In suchandsuch year, the average global temperature was X, the next year it was Y and these are the CO2 readings, taken in different locations and at different attitudes. Raw, unadjusted and non-projected data shows this. Right now we don't know the end result. The worst case scenario is temperature increases could cause presently frozen methane to release into the atmosphere, causing a run away greenhouse and mass extinction. But nobody credible is saying this WILL happen. You're confusing doomsday scenarios like that for mainstream climate science that continues to refine its methods, improve its models but mostly does field research.

Even though the doomsday scenario is unlikely, it seems foolish to continue using polluting technologies and miss out on the Third Industrial Revolutions economic benefits. I'd much prefer the GDP to rise instead of the temperatures.

And I also note Longhurst is a biological oceanographer not a climatologist. Don't ask am air conditioner repairman to fix your car or vice/versa. Why is that the skeptics are from other fields? Another example of what's so silly about this: you need to know about the fall of Rome. Do you ask the Literature Professor or the History Professor and why? I should hope the answer is obvious. Right now the people on your side are asking social anthropology professors about the climate instead of the climatology professor....  Just the Literature professor is liable to make make mistakes, so does Longhurst:

Quote
One fundamental! flaw!in! the! use! of! this! number!is!the!assumption! that! small!
changes!in!surface!air!temperature must!represent the!accumulation!or!loss!of!heat!by!
the!planet because!of! the!presence of!greenhouse!gases!in! the!atmosphere and,!with!
some!reservations,! this!is!a reasonable!assumption!on!land.!! But at!sea,!and!so!over!
>70%!of!the!Earth's!surface, change!in!the!temperature!of!the!air!a!few!metres!above!
the! surface may! reflect!nothing!more! than! changing vertical!motion!in! the! ocean in!
response!to!changing wind!stress!on!the!surface;!consequently, changes!in sea!surface!
temperature!(and!in!air!a!few!metres!above)!do!not!necessarily represent significant!
changes in!global!heat!content although!this!is!the!assumption!customarily!made.


Extraneous exclamation points are a product of the copy/paste. Anyway, that's nice but most of the readings have nothing to do with the ocean :p So I'm off to go ask the Catholic priest about Methodist doctrine and the Methodist preacher about Catholic doctrine. They're both Christians, ministers and consider themselves men of God, so I see little need to ask the correct clergy about those denominations. In case you don't get it, people tend to lump all scientists together, but an expert in one field doesn't imply knowledge of all fields.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-15, 01:45:28
In suchandsuch year, the average global temperature was X
Does an average global temperature have a meaning...that applies to reality? Or is it simply a case of mathematization? :)

And I also note Longhurst is a biological oceanographer not a climatologist.
Why do you keep repeating this? Are Oreskes, Cook or Lewandowsky climatologists? :)
By the same token, are Curry, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer...?
You protesteth too much!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Extraneous exclamation points are a product of the copy/paste.
You might have fixed that...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-15, 03:07:33
Why do you keep repeating this?

Because we have all these "skeptics" who aren't even in the field. It seems like it would be easier be skeptical of a theory if you're not actually researching in it.
Are Oreskes, Cook or Lewandowsky climatologists?

But they conducted a survey, which is what people in their field do. They set out to disprove another field's theory without actually researching extensively collecting it's data.

Longhurst himself says:

Quote
All this leaves us in the uncomfortable  position of having two competing
mechanisms before us,  and a choice to make: (i) the observed heat gains are
attributable to anthropogenic heat that has entered the oceans or (ii)changes in solar
radiation received at the sea surface have been sufficient to cause the  warming.
The! IPCC asks no such questions, and rejects outright anything other than an
anthropogenic effect.!
Does he seriously think the IPCC doesn't know the oceans act as a heat sink? And surely he hasn't missed the studies in which the effects of solar solar radiation where examined. As said previously, the amount of solar radiation has actually been decreasing, not increasing, therefore if the oceans were relying solely on the sun for warming, they should actually be cooling for having received less energy from our star. Longhurst at least make some scientific arguments, but in this instance falls back to a long disproven idea that bizarrely remains a favorite in the skeptic community.

But obviously I wasn't with him when he wrote the book, therefore its easy for me to poke holes in it; as easy as it is for him poke a little hole in the arguments of thousands of climatologists when he wasn't there for the climatologists to consider if we're entering a new solar cycle in which global warming wouldn't come as surprise (and rejecting the notion upon examining solar data.)  Yup, being the critic is by far the easier path than being the creator of the work.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-15, 04:13:08
Because we have all these "skeptics" who aren't even in the field.
And all "these skeptics" who are...which you choose to ignore.
[...] it would be easier [to] be skeptical of a theory if you're not actually researching in it
...Likewise, it's easier to accept a political consensus -- without understanding or even being interested in the science (the practice and the results...) that should (but perhaps don't? :) ) support it.

BTW: Of course a marine biologist would know nothing of the oceans' workings... Why, he'd have to be a special specialist! :)

Seriously, Sang, why do you support so vociferously the mostly political output of a decidedly political UN group? (Thousands of climatologists? Try hundreds, and perhaps only a few score who hew to the extreme views supporting CAGW. But the politicized bureaucracies of various "associations" have no problem, taking political positions!) You don't even support their remediational strategies...
That leads me to believe that your hostility and animosity is ideological: Some of the so-called skeptics are political conservatives... A sin you can't abide.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-15, 15:58:07
Seriously, Sang, why do you support so vociferously the mostly political output of a decidedly political UN group?

Seriously, you didn't read what I said, yet again. Therefore there's no point in writing anything.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-16, 00:01:11
Oakdale brings up a point worth thinking about.

Way back when, I used to belong to Boilermakers/Blacksmiths union. Typical of most unions, they never saw a Democrat they didn't like nor a Republican they didn't hate with a passion. If you only got your information from the official paper of the union, you'd think the entire membership would vote Democrat.

Now, many members did in fact do just that. But then you have folk like me at the time, who think independent of what the union hierarchy was trying to push-- people who voted for somebody else. Some independent, some Republican and some mixed-ticket (separate from independent here because I thought maybe 3rd or even 4th party).

So--- when somebody here (I won't mention names, but you know who you are) puts up a long list of organizations that say we must do something to stop climate change, I openly wonder how many of the scientists within those groups stand with it heart and soul, and how many would openly question it IF their voices were allowed to be heard.

No, I don't trust "consensus". In my mind, it's just another word for censorship of any opinion that doesn't toe the party line.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-16, 01:57:05
Nobody tried to silence anyone else for having a different theory. It's just one hasn't been presented that can withstand peer review. When one claims climate change is because of increased solar activity and the opposite has been happening, it won't gain scientific traction for example. The consensus is because no other viable theories seem to exist and not because of some nefarious plots straight from the X-Files. In fact, this is not the only consensus in science regardless of field. Sometimes the data only points in one direction and not because it's been rigged to so.

It's just that this issue has been politicized by fossil fuel money. Did you hear about this corruption yet,  Congressional Energy Chairs Form Fundraising Committee, Rake In Oil, Gas Cash As They Push Bills For Fossil Fuel Industry  (http://www.ibtimes.com/congressional-energy-chairs-form-fundraising-committee-rake-oil-gas-cash-they-push-2170149) . Further down, the articles notes bills being pushed by those two to "streamline" the regulatory process allows omission of critical environmental impact data from fossil fuel companies about their activities. Then it turns out Exxon-Mobile may have been illegally surpassing data from its own researchers indicating the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming. If you're looking for censorship, lies, deceit and corruption, there's plenty to be had. It's just know where you think.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-16, 05:16:05
Nobody tried to silence anyone else for having a different theory.
So: No one has called for RICO prosecutions of "deniers"? :)
It's just one hasn't been presented that can withstand peer review.
If you mean review by the "Hockey Team," you're correct... If you mean journal review, eh, not so much.
When one claims climate change is because of increased solar activity and the opposite has been happening, it won't gain scientific traction for example.
Yet when one claims "climate change" is because of increased anthropogenic COsub2[/i], a few inexperienced scientists (and a lot of leftist politicians!) pile on!
(Apparently, you still believe our atmosphere is warming... At this point, I'm ready to discount everything but satellite measurements; and I don't give them much credence, within proper error estimations.)
The consensus is because no other viable theories seem to exist[...]
You, of course, mean "politically viable"... Simple models using nothing more than the pre-industrial range of variations (of temperature) give better matches to current observations than the best GCMs. (The anomalous "trends" keep coming back, after previous data have been "adjusted" -- and that doesn't make you suspicious? :) ) But I get your point: Politicians won't accept a theory -well, a certain kind of politician- that doesn't provide them the means of control...
It's just that this issue has been politicized by fossil fuel money.
Hansen's '88 congressional testimony doesn't count? :) (Anyone with a computer can look up how he rigged it...)
Then it turns out Exxon-Mobile may have been illegally surpassing data from its own researchers indicating the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming.
Most people recognize such charges as smear and innuendo; but not you, Sang.
Like Chicago's current mayor quipped some years back: Never let a crisis go to waste!
But what do you do, without a crisis, eh? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-16, 06:59:06
The Price of Denialism (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/the-rules-of-denialism/#more-158446)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-16, 07:51:11
I liked this early-on trope:
Quote
As the comedian John Oliver so aptly put it in commenting on a recent Gallup poll that found that one in four Americans disbelieve in climate change: "You don't need people's opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking: 'Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?' Or 'Do owls exist' or 'Are there hats?'"
...Anyone else ever wonder why so many CAGW proponents quote comedians? (But they don't quote Al Sleet, the hippy-dippy weatherman! George Carlin, for those of you age-challenged... :))
Quote
To reject a cascade of scientific evidence that shows that the global temperature is warming and that humans are almost certainly perhaps might be, but we can't prove it, [nor] the cause of it, is not good reasoning, even if some long-shot hypothesis comes along in 50 years to show us why we were wrong. [And that's why we have to take drastic action, right now!]
But what about the children!? :tears: (I'd ask, what about the politicians?)
Quote
In scientific reasoning, there is such a thing as warrant. Our beliefs must be justified. This means that we should believe what the evidence tells us, even while science insists that we must also try our best to show how any given theory might be wrong. Science will sometimes miss the mark, but its successful track record suggests that there is no superior competitor in discovering the facts about the empirical world. The fact that scientists sometimes make mistakes in their research or conclusions is no reason for us to prefer opinions over facts.

True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don't need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.
"There is no pause... The pause you were looking for isn't here... Look elsewhere..." I know it's a slight problem, for True Believers, but the failure of all those multi-million dollar computer simulations to predict the actual climate -no matter how much it's been "adjusted" to match- is embarrassing. (One would think that trained scientists would be... Rather than yell pejorative epithets at those with whom they disagree.) But -of course- it's in the deep ocean, hiding! That global warming is hiding from scientists! Bad global warming!

Please read this again:
Quote
In scientific reasoning, there is such a thing as warrant. Our beliefs must be justified. This means that we should believe what the evidence tells us [...]
True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. [Not consensus opinion? :) ]

Now (but before, too...) any competent editor would have interceded:
Quote
When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don't need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.

But the NYT seems not to have any competent editors nowadays.
(BTW: "When we cynically withhold belief" are we pretending? You mean, author, that the climatologists are dissemblers...?* :) Myself, I just think most are self-deluded.
And the field of climatology is vigorously trying to relegate actual scientists to the realm of "Denialism"...if they don't toe the line of the consensus... Why?

Certainly, that's a good sign of a healthy "atmosphere" for science... :(
You don't need to be ashamed of yourself; I'm ashamed, for you.
----------------------------------------------------------
* No. You just mean anyone who disagrees with you must be evil... God help you!
The Devil already is... :)
----------------------------------------------------------
Sang, for your benefit I post this:
"Lee McIntyre is a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University" and not a climatologist... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-16, 09:36:03
Again, I ask you, Sang. As a professional, how do you support the "97%" consensus? :)
Quote
In social science, it's common to use trained human raters to subjectively rate or score some variable -- it can be children's behavior on a playground, interviews of all kinds, and often written material, like participants' accounts of a past emotional experience. And we have a number of analytical and statistical tools that go with such rating studies. But we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings. That's completely nuts. It's so egregious that I don't think it even occurs to us as something to look out for. It never happens. At least I've never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.

But it's happening in climate science. Sort of. These junk studies are being published in climate science journals, which are probably not well-equipped to evaluate what are ultimately social science studies (in method). And I assume the journals weren't aware that these studies used political activists as raters.
(source)

But -of course- he's only a PHD candidate... So, what he says about papers in his field mean little or nothing, compared to what a BS grad says. (Why, I ask, are you so miffed? You don't like Mexicans?!) Durarte's bone fides seem -to me- to be pretty solid. But some people have to know an academic's position on certain politically "sensitive" subjects, before they can decide if they're -- Oh. That's the point, for you. Isn't it?
Are they compliant? Are they agreeing with us? Are they amenable to peer pressure? Are they contrarians? Are they not "go with the flow" folk, like us? :)
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm hitting "below the belt" -- which is what you've always done...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-17, 06:13:59
Yet when one claims "climate change" is because of increased anthropogenic COsub2[/i], a few inexperienced scientists (and a lot of leftist politicians!) pile on!

Bingo! Your tell is "leftist." You see this as a struggle between Left and Right. This is just science. As the link Belfrager shared points out:

Quote
True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don't need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.


Unfortunately you've joined the ranks of ideologically driven crackpots, kneejerking against what you incorrectly perceive to a liberal agenda. The article notes that you should attempt to debunk every given scientific theory. Every attempt to do so, be from earnest scientists or ideologically driven crackpots, has failed. Miserably.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-18, 07:28:43
Quote
The politically driven push to manufacture a premature consensus on human caused climate change and create an argument based on bootstrapped plausibility has misdirected climate science for the past two decades.  The hockey stick attempted to wipeout secular variations prior to the 20th century, but even Mike's Nature trick spliced the early 20th century warming as an integral part of the blade.  At most, only a small fraction of the early 20th century warming was caused by CO2 (this issue was recently addressed in a post by Vaughan Pratt (http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/)).
(source (http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/#more-20437))

Sang, you often go mute! I understand why: You don't know what to say! (Of course, you know what to say -- when liberal bias is mentioned...)

What science says CO2 is a major driver of earth's climate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the link Belfrager shared points out [...]
New York Times op-eds usually point out -- what? :) Liberal talking points.
I read the piece: It was a political screed.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-18, 10:06:47
At most, only a small fraction of the early 20th century warming was caused by CO2 (this issue was recently addressed in a post by Vaughan Pratt (http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/)).

At that time, there was an increase in solar activity, as opposed to a decrease which what's happening now. Nobody is silly enough to think the sun doesn't factor into climate trends. However, now we've entered in a period of increased average global temperatures but decreased solar activity. This article fails to bring any new data to light or example what's happening now. It's a political piece cloaked scientific language designed to sow seeds of doubt among the scientifically unsophisticated and nothing more.

Oblige me to make an analogy for you. Let's say there was a murder with multiple suspects. But Bill's alibi checks out and others can place him well away from the murder at the time it took place. Likewise for John, Paul and however many suspects in the crime you want. But witnesses can place Calvin at the scene when the murder took place. Further, the police discover he has a gun matching the type used in the crime. That alone does 100% prove Calvin did it, but there's a damn good chance he did and further investigation will fill in the five percent doubt of his guilt. But the "crime" in question is global warming. Was Solar Activity there? Nope. Variations Earth's orbit/ axis? Nope. Increased CO2? Yes? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Was there a nature reason for the increased CO2? Nopers. So anthropogenic CO2 emissions remains remains the prime suspect. I noticed the article you offered said "over 40% of the warming since 1911 occurred prior to 1944." That means 60 percent of it occurred AFTER 1944. To stretch analogy, if a past murderer died, obviously he couldn't have committed the recent one, could he? That might sound like smartass question and maybe to some extent it is. But the fact is the suspect in global warming during the time periods discussed in the article "died."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-18, 11:55:23

At that time, there was an increase in solar activity, as opposed to a decrease which what's happening now. Nobody is silly enough to think the sun doesn't factor into climate trends.

But when the sun has an effect, then human activity doesn't! This is obvious, logical, and RIGHT, because Oakdale is a RIGHTist.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-18, 23:17:12
New York Times op-eds usually point out -- what?  :)  Liberal talking points.
I read the piece: It was a political screed.

That was not an op-ed but an article in "The stone", a blog by contemporary philosophers at the NYT. The only part of the newspaper worthy of reading.

A screed? not only thousands and thousands of scientists are connected at some secret organization against Oakdale and the oil tycoons but philosophers have joined it as well...

because Oakdale is a RIGHTist.

Is he? doubt it very much, he doesn't even comprehend the concepts of Country, Nation and State, fundamental for real Right thinking.
I see him more as a JOKERist. I like him. :)


Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-20, 10:20:23
Well, Belfrager, I'm -sort of- glad that you still like me; I -sort of- still like you, too. What I don't get, is why you accept an obviously political agenda in place of legitimate scientific research?
CO2 has an effect on the earth's climate, of course! (We -all of us post-Cambrian creatures- require it's 0.04 % of our atmosphere to survive!) And we humans have a sometimes enormous effect on our local environments...
Unlike other animals? Hm.
(Did God say "Go forth, and be inconspicuous? I haven't found that verse...)

It's not the thousands you pretend to; it's the pretension of those "thousands" that most offends me...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-20, 10:36:13
I'd thought I'd posted something that might be important... But, considering who responds here, and how, that seems unlikely. (I might try to find it; I might not.)
A screed? not only thousands and thousands of scientists are connected at some secret organization against Oakdale and the oil tycoons but philosophers have joined it as well...
Apparently, you're very much a joiner, Bel.
I've known more than enough "philosophers" to know that what they say has no particular "warrant"... You have a different view, I take it? :)

Silly people often do! :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-20, 23:54:56
I've known more than enough "philosophers" to know that what they say has no particular "warrant"... You have a different view, I take it?

No I don't, I just don't have patience for your silly crusade. Too much démodé.
I'm afraid that your cultural "circumstances" (remember Ortega Y Gasset?) prevents you of realizing it.
Tell me something new, radically new. That I like it. :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-21, 02:45:22
I have to do this. Some time back, our fellow from Portugal put up a long list of scientific and religious organizations that have gotten onto the AGW /Stop Climate Change train. Now, truth is I've never been one to jump onto bandwagons, and sometimes there's good reason to stay clear of the bandwagon.

Since Bel seems to like long, exhaustive lists, how about a list of all the things that Global Warming is supposed to be causing? Some things on the list are contradictory-- how can AGW cause less Antarctic ice and MORE Antarctic ice? Some things are patently silly. I fully expect that if you stub your toe on a chair leg and utter a stream of words nobody thought you even knew, stubbing your toe can be blamed on AGW. Well, why not? They're already saying terrorism is caused by it, so we might as well blame AGW for stubbing your toe.

Warning: The list is something of a link-farm, and if you trace all that stuff down it'll take forever--- and the list is growing.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-21, 14:07:26
Now, truth is I've never been one to jump onto bandwagons, and sometimes there's good reason to stay clear of the bandwagon.

Bandwagons of no bandwagons... bandwagons of lonely cowboys. :)

It results very clear to me, self called skeptics on Climatic Changes are denialists, limited by a cultural influence that confuses freedom with relativism.

In the intellectual world there's no freedom for being wrong but you keep insisting that a triangle has four sides and why? because and just because you don't take the three sided triangle bandwagon... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-21, 14:41:04
I never even once said that a triangle had four sides. Where on Earth did you get a silly idea like that?

But, since you seem to think I did, at some time, insist that a triangle has four sides--- I suspect I can safely discard anything else you have to say since it's obviously not based on reality. Four sided triangles? Must be a Portuguese thing.

Reality right now: Where I live, we're under "Winter storm warning" with several inches of "Global warming" expected to accumulate. While I'm at it, a look at the regional maps shows that it is, in fact, snowing in Hell right now. (I'm not just a-woofin'. It is snowing in Hell, Michigan according to the radar images.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-21, 15:29:39
I never even once said that a triangle had four sides. Where on Earth did you get a silly idea like that?

But, since you seem to think I did, at some time, insist that a triangle has four sides--- I suspect I can safely discard anything else you have to say since it's obviously not based on reality. Four sided triangles? Must be a Portuguese thing.

There he starts again...

From where I got such a silly idea was from things called allegories, metaphors and other indirect writing resources and general literacy proficiency.

You do well mjm, forget my posts, just don't read them, let them rot in hell. :)
Quote from: mjmsprt40
Reality right now: Where I live, we're under "Winter storm warning" with several inches of "Global warming" expected to accumulate.

Ain't reality right now a wonderful place to be... never leave it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-21, 19:06:10
I look out the window, glad I don't have to go anywhere. "Global warming" has served up a snorter of a blizzard, with heavy snow, high winds and low visibility. My landlord shoveled the drive not an hour ago, and at this moment you can't tell that he did a thing. With these winds, we get ground-effect blizzard into the bargain.

The weather prognosticators say the snow should end in a couple of hours, but that the temperature will plunge tonight. Bring in the brass monkey!

Edit; add-on: The snow stopped, and landlord and I joined forces to clear the drive. Good thing to get that done too, it was heavy and wet, and with tonight's low temps it would have frozen to rock-hard in the morning. Good luck moving it then.

I know my personal observations don't count because I don't have the "right" (or maybe that should be "left") credentials, but I do have 60 years of noticing things around me. That's why I'm a skeptic--- I just don't see the calamities that were forecast to have already happened, but have not. I suspect it won't happen by 2115 either--- but conveniently for the forecasters of CAGW doom, nobody now living will be alive to call them out on it and they won't be alive--- at least in the sense that we understand life on this planet-- to face the music.

Now, wait a bit while I brush the snow off of my flying car. Oh, wait, that's right--- they're still toys in the hands of inventors, not ready for public use and may never be. See what a problem predicting the future can be?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-11-22, 10:10:44
I know my personal observations don't count because I don't have the "right" (or maybe that should be "left") credentials, but I do have 60 years of noticing things around me.

It sounds more like you're too focused on the term "global warming" while you should really be calling it something like "climate change" instead. Although as it happens, I was outside in a t-shirt just last week because it was approaching 18° -- the warmest November temperature in recorded history. (Right now it's 2°, btw. Much more seasonally appropriate, possibly a touch cold.) But just last month it reached -6° in October -- the coldest since record-keeping started. And if the Gulf Stream were interrupted, it'd get a heck of a lot colder in winter and warmer in summer around here, basically a Central European climate instead of what we're used to. The English term "global warming" isn't wrong per se, in the sense that on a worldwide average the temperature is increasing ever so slightly, but it's ultimately quite misleading. But ersi said more than enough about that already either here or on My Opera.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-22, 10:36:23
Global Warming had to morph into Climate Change, because the so-called science made predictions that were wrong. (All ersi's said is the slogan "Be resolute: Don't pollute!" Very helpful, no? :) ) The so-called "misleading" term Global Warming is the lynch-stone of the CAGW movement... If global warming, produced by anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 isn't so bad, the political forces, which drive this controversy and ask -or require!- serious and untested restructuring of the world's economy, are easily seen to be purely political.

What has anyone said, that makes stopping or stifling the world's hydrocarbon economy...?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-22, 11:28:18
The English term "global warming" isn't wrong per se, in the sense that on a worldwide average the temperature is increasing ever so slightly, but it's ultimately quite misleading.

Deliberately.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-22, 11:52:35

Global Warming had to morph into Climate Change, because the so-called science made predictions that were wrong. (All ersi's said is the slogan "Be resolute: Don't pollute!" Very helpful, no? :) )

Actually, I said that the issue concerns the greenhouse effect, to which industrial pollution contributes. Your reductionism shows again.


The so-called "misleading" term Global Warming is the lynch-stone of the CAGW movement... If global warming, produced by anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 isn't so bad, the political forces, which drive this controversy and ask -or require!- serious and untested restructuring of the world's economy, are easily seen to be purely political.

Global Warming is misleading because the issue scientifically is the more subtle greenhouse effect, not warming. However, warming is simpler to understand and sloganise for political purposes on both sides. This is why the climate conferences tout warming and this is what the denialists batter, ignoring the real issue.

Next up again is "the target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C" It's the same thing as ECB's definition of price stability as "inflation rates below, but close to, 2%"

The issue is scientific, but when politicians deal with it, they formulate it politically. It's inevitably reductive and wrong of them to do this, but it's also wrong and reductive to think that due to political involvement it ceases to be a scientific issue. In truth, it's a discernibly scientific issue where one can take sides without any political allegiance. Except Oakdale, who is only capable of taking sides along political lines while blaming everybody else for it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-11-22, 12:11:28
Global Warming had to morph into Climate Change, because the so-called science made predictions that were wrong.

As far as my recollection goes, the range of phenomena encompassed by the term "global warming" has traditionally (at least as far back as the '80s and '90s) always been called the (versterkt) broeikaseffect (enhanced greenhouse effect or just greenhouse effect) in Dutch. The occasional use of the calque opwarming van de Aarde ("warming of Earth") seems to be a more recent development. I'm inclined to agree with ersi that the problem you perceive is primarily English or American (and political) in nature, and even then only in popular parlance, not in scientific literature.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-22, 14:18:06
You can call it whatever you like. "Climate Change", "Global Warming" "CAGW" or whatever else you choose to hang on it when the present name has worn out its welcome. It's still the same old same old---- a bunch of rich guys who want to remain rich and get even richer are ready, willing and able--- through political muscle-- to impoverish the rest of the world through made-up crapola. Frankly, they don't care if you and I freeze in the dark so long as they continue to live the high-life, and the fact that you're ready to sign on to your own impoverishment just makes it easier.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-22, 17:11:27
It's still the same old same old---- a bunch of rich guys who want to remain rich and get even richer are ready, willing and able--- through political muscle-- to impoverish the rest of the world through made-up crapola

And it doesn't occur to that the crapola is being made up by said rich guys but on the opposite side than you seem to think? The crapola is the emissions have nothing to do with the increased average temperature of the Earth. I pointed out before that ExxonMobile is behind a disturbing large amount of the "skeptics" , manufacturing confusion for the public around the issue for political and monetary gain. Anthropogenic climate change directly threatens the livelihood for rich guys at the helm the fossil fuel industry.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-22, 20:16:08
Midnight, I may not be the sharpest tack in the box. But, I do possess a few things that have stood the test of time.

1. A window. These panes of glass are excellent for allowing you to see outside to see what is happening. Right now--- there's snow on the ground. We've cleared it from the driveway here, and the streets have been plowed, but there's still ice to be watchful for.

2. A thermometer. A really useful device for telling you--- before you step outside--- that it's cold in November in Chicago. It's been like that every November that I can remember.

3. Some degree, at least, of common sense, and with it a sense of the history of conditions. You know, things really haven't changed in all the years (60 so far) that I've been alive. It's warm in the summer and cold in the winter, every year--- and it doesn't vary much.

I also developed, over a period of years, a sense of who should and who should not be trusted--- and why. Right now, the warmunists are really low on my trust-o-meter, and there's no sign of that changing any time soon.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-23, 02:23:13
Yes, let's make sure to confuse what's happening in the moment for long term global climate trends :yes: That doesn't disprove climate change any more than it being well above our scorching 105 F normal all summer long proves it. Cold is a relative term. Fifty degrees here is cold, due to how hot it is in the summer. So your summers being warmer establishes a different threshold of how you perceive cold.

This is the The Weather Channel's outlook for this winter:

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fdsx.weather.com%2F%2Futil%2Fimage%2Fw%2Fwsi_outlook_dec-feb.jpg%3Fv%3Dap%26amp%3Bw%3D980%26amp%3Bh%3D551%26amp%3Bapi%3D7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0%5D&hash=4f89eeeb382c955cf1848b6480be5aff" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/wsi_outlook_dec-feb.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0])

So somebody of limited vision and scientific knowledge in Seattle could take their conditions as proof of "global warming" , while somebody in Florida could come to the opposite conclusion. Both cases would be like a blind man confusing an elephant for a tree. But you'd say you have snow on the ground. It's not winter, or even December, yet :p
I also developed, over a period of years, a sense of who should and who should not be trusted--- and why.

Right. Trust the "rich guys" at ExxonMobile because clearly they don't have an agenda, unlike the huge thousandaire professors that have been tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures for years and could probably actually make more money doing a bogus study for ExxonMobile or writing a distraction blog against Climate Change (ie, disingenuously claiming increased Antarctic sea ice disproves climate change while ignoring the shrinking Arctic and Greenland ice and the fact that total global sea ice is still decreasing...)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: ersi on 2015-11-23, 05:44:23
It's regular now. As soon as winter arrives, mjm begins to discuss global warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-23, 06:04:53
I'm just pleasantly drunk, so I was only going to say "You really do love your conspiracy theories, Sang! :) "
But I had to refresh the page and, so, re-read your opening salvo...

Trends?!?! Do you play the stock market, using the length of ladies' hems? :) (Typical "social science" -- BTW.)
Without a verified causal model, trends are "voodoo science"; and with contrary data, they are no longer trends -- no matter the results of computer simulations designed to generate such.

But there is one area of disputation where trends are certainly acceptable: Thousands of years of repeating cycles... These, of course, are not explanations; they are merely data -- with hints...
(One would think scientists would be interested. But, perhaps, a great many of them have other interests...)

The CO2 "control knob" was a good hypothesis. I admit it: It had empirical backing (our fairly recent measurements of atmospheric CO2, supposed anomalous increases in SAT...) and naive physics (the greenhouse effect...). But it hasn't panned out.
Recent (and better) data confute it; and recent theory can't explain it's failures.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-11-23, 10:48:17
Some people confuse global climate with snow in their backyard.
Is it an American thing?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-23, 20:35:40
I never said I trust Exxon/Mobil either. You say that, Sang, because you need to discredit what I did in fact say---- and the only way, apparently, that you can do that is to suggest that I am in the back-pocket of Big Oil.

Good luck in your fairy-tale dream world--- you'll need it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-23, 23:31:33
Do you still wonder why I don't believe this hoo-hah about climate change?

Consider that Prince Charles, heir apparent to the Throne of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, believes that climate change caused the present terrorism. I am not making this up. In fact, I've been reading several items that suggest that our esteemed world leaders believe tough talk on climate change will show ISIL that this time, we mean business! That'll scare 'em.

Yeah---- maybe it'll scare ISIL that men with their heads so firmly planted up their @&& are actually world leaders. I know it scares me.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/prince-charles-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-war-in-syria/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/prince-charles-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-war-in-syria/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-24, 00:04:20
How about this one? King of Sweden wants to ban baths to stop climate change......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329759/King-Sweden-calls-ban-BATHS-admits-ashamed-run-one.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329759/King-Sweden-calls-ban-BATHS-admits-ashamed-run-one.html)

Look, folks, there's TONS of this kind of stuff. Makes you think that maybe we're in a lot of trouble, and it's not from climate change.

We're not off the hook here in the states either. President Obama says that climate change is a bigger and more important threat than terrorism--- and last I heard, he seemed so convinced of this that I daresay he would believe it even with ISIL operatives in the Oval Office holding a knife to his throat. Our leaders do not appear to be well.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-24, 01:57:58
Actually the King of Sweden didn't seem to indicate that it has anything to do with climate change, but rather the amount of energy and water it uses :p But since when is the DM a credible source anyway?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-24, 06:03:16
Credible sources? :) You're a funny fellow, Sang!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-24, 06:41:53
This from the guy that puts cites poorly written blog posts with incorrect links embedded. Whatever you say, buddy. Oh that's right. It's not credible unless it comes from a Right wing source.  Science journals are not allowed, since they only provide unspun data. Citing actual climatologists is especially not allowed; you need to have social psychology students trying to poke a hole in 97 percent of peer reviewed climate articles support anthropogenic climate change but have his source link merely be a search engine and for him to not tell the reader his search methodology for it to be acceptable. :yes: I got it now :yes: :yes:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-24, 08:00:53
Sang, if you don't know, believe me everyone else does -- except perhaps "fellow travelers"! :)

Wouldn't you like to see a "social study" where the political affiliations of the respondents and those of the "raters" were hidden, from the git'go? Of course not! How would you know, then, to interpret the results... It's all politics, for you.
(You repeatedly say it isn't; and then show clearly that it is.)

What study (or group of such) shows that CO2 is anything like a "control knob" on the earth's climate? (That's what the UN and their various agencies proclaim, as justification for assuming control of the world's economy...) You don't know; and I know you can't find out -- because I can't, either.

CAGW is a theory in search of a justification -- the main one accepted by "true believers" is Social Justice... Doesn't that strike you as not just odd but actually absurd? :) Nah!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-24, 14:40:57
I don't do "politically correct" in case you haven't noticed. Frankly, I got tired a long time ago of leftist lies--- sorry, can't call it anything else--- that I am expected to swallow whole and believe because it's "politically correct" to spout that nonsense.

Now that this is out of the way: Highly placed white-horse souses tell me that much of this "climate change" stuff is little more than a wealth-transfer shakedown, where richer nations are expected to give billions to poorer nations. The UN will, of course, oversee the transfer. The check will be in the mail, you can count on it. Would the Nigerian general's wife lie about that?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-24, 15:12:06
So good, so let's reduce vetted empirical data to mere political correctness and some kind of weird theory that it's about wealth transfer from rich nations to developing ones.  And now I get to have Oakdale trying to make me defend a theory that I wasn't even advancing, yet again. You say you don't like political correctness. Fine, let's not be politically correct and say you and Oakdale are quite frankly out of your depths. You get confused by fifth grade level science in not understand the basics of how warmer temperatures could either cause the Antarctic icesheet to increase or decrease (decrease is the easier of the two. The ice melts. Increase because warmer air can hold more water, resulting in more snowfall to be added to the glaciation. Seriously, freakin' elementary school science. ) How's this for not being politically correct? The atmospheric levels of a greenhouse gas increase by this much, so a greenhouse effect occurs? Fucking common sense. The remaining questions are by how much/how fast and what the impacts will be.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-24, 20:44:58
(That's what the UN and their various agencies proclaim, as justification for assuming control of the world's economy...)

UN... worst than CAOS+SPECTRE.  :lol:
Get Smart Oakdale Bond will save us all...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-24, 21:21:25
I keep pitching them, you keep ducking them because the politics----..

OK, here comes another one---fast, on the inside---- DUCK!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/claim-500-million-children-at-risk-from-climate-change/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/claim-500-million-children-at-risk-from-climate-change/)

Side note: I have a couple of blogs that I follow on this subject. Most stuff I would put here comes from WUWT because he does run a scientifically inclined blog, usually backing up what he says with solid data. The other one, I have to say is spotty at best and I have a suspicion he just might be a corporate shill--- much of "Junk Science" seems to make me wonder about that blog.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-24, 22:40:47
This sort of thing seems to have been going on for a while. I always thought (because this is what I learned in history) that WW1 and the armistice that followed-- with its punitive effects on Germany in particular-- followed by a global depression which affected Germany especially hard, helped Hitler attain and then keep power. Nope, I was wrong apparently---- it was global warming. Can't make this stuff up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/the-ultimate-godwin-effect-science-in-1941-global-warming-caused-hitler/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/the-ultimate-godwin-effect-science-in-1941-global-warming-caused-hitler/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-25, 03:29:12
The other one, I have to say is spotty at best and I have a suspicion he just might be a corporate shill--- much of "Junk Science" seems to make me wonder about that blog.

Here's a little about him.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

Quote
Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]
And yet Oakdale calls me noting how many of these "skeptic" sites are funded by the very industries threatened by evidence of climate change a conspiracy theory. It really is one after another.

The article notes he's not a scientist and apparently was disingenuous about his credentials and seems to be a college dropout.

Ooops, he founded  SurfaceStations.org in an attempt to prove some global warming isn't global at all but oops:

Quote
Results of analyzing the SurfaceStations data did not match Watts's expectations; a NOAA analysis of the Surface Stations data showed "no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.
Now it wouldn't be surprising to find Las Vegas (for example) to be warming due to it being a growing city in the desert. In other words, a heat island. But that's not the case everywhere, is it?

Oh dear:

Quote
"Leipzig Declaration" signatory
Anthony Watts is listed as a signatory on the "Leipzig Declaration", which said "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever."

The signers of the Declaration are described as "climate scientists", although they include 25 weather presenters.[30] An attempt to contact the declaration's 33 European signers found that 4 of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter
Yup, making declarations that there is no consensus and adding signatories without them knowing, getting corporate shills and people with no credentials to sign, and hoping people will confuse weather forecasters for climatologists.

In summary, he has no credibility.

Here's  Wottupwiththat  (http://wottsupwiththat.com/), the parody site :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-25, 04:49:32
You're a hoot, Sang! :)

Where -BTW- are the links to the papers that explain and verify the anthropogenic global warming due to atmospheric CO2...? (Surely, if they exist, someone has collated and published them... No? :) Someone compiled and published the list of "organizations" Belfrager posted. You'd think the actual, you know, science would be easier...? :) Nah! Like-minds are more prevalent, and vocal...) I know you can't give them, because I've looked myself and I can't find them; and I'm actually interested, even to the point of concern!

But the so-called "climate experts" -who have the kind of bone fides you seem to require- don't have scientific arguments supporting their contentions, to my satisfaction.
Not yet. (And much of what I've read disturbs me: These people claim to be "doing" science...) Of course, you can and will ask for my credentials -"Papers, please!"- before considering my estimations; but you won't question your own: Sang, my training is better suited to this topic.

Will you try to smear every one who doesn't toe the CAGW line peddled by the IPCC? Were I a betting man, I'd say yes; that's all you've got...
And you're fond of doubling-down.
(Must be a Las Vegas thing.)

(You can guess what I think of SourceWatch, and even you should know better than to cite them. Go back to ThinkProgress and the HuffPo... They're more honest.
But perhaps that Mad Cow disease got you... :) )
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-25, 05:36:14
my training is better suited to this topic.

You have no training. Asking for links connecting CO2 to anthropogenic climate change is like asking for some to prove rain comes from clouds at this point. You're scientifically illiterate. You say  "the so-called "climate experts" -who have the kind of bone fides you seem to require- don't have scientific arguments supporting their contentions, to my satisfaction." You can't explain to kindergarteners that the sun is just one of billions of stars to their satisfaction either. The sun is big and yellow and stars are small and white, aren't they?

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-25, 06:51:52
The climatologists do have scientific arguments supporting their contentions -- which observation has refuted. For some reason, you don't like that result and, hence, call people (including scientists...) who don't agree with you nasty names.
That's certainly the way we should be doing science! :)
You can't explain to kindergarteners that the sun is just one of billions of stars to their satisfaction either.
Most pre-schoolers aren't as obtuse as you, Sang!

Do you know of even one paper (...you know: published, peer-reviewed) that actually supports your contention -- whatever the heck it is? :)
[If it's only: Tesla motors should be allowed to sell cars and solar cells shouldn't be illegal, I'd agree. (Ditto, whatever "green" scheme comes along...) You seem, however, to want something more... Why, I ask, won't you say what that more is?]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other topic that seems to interest you more:
You have no training.
I have no certification... Are you really naive enough to equate the two? (A born bureaucrat, I think!)
You're scientifically illiterate.
You're only evidence for this is that I won't accept your unsupported (...scientifically unsupported; but "socially" very popular!) claims about our current understanding of the earth's climate...
Pretty slim evidence, even for a sociology major!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-25, 08:25:34
The climatologists do have scientific arguments supporting their contentions -- which observation has refuted. For some reason, you don't like that result and, hence, call people (including scientists...) who don't agree with you nasty names.

Refuted? By whom? Anyone can refute anything and be a hundred percent wrong. You do realize this, right? Who factchecks the factcheckers? In the case of anthropogenic climate check, it's the non-anthropogenic theories that have fallen, leaving the "skeptics" (again often paid by the petroleum industry) grasping at dry straws, such as trying to disprove the 97% consensus or other weapons-grade lameness. Alas, the "skeptics" have an easier job. They don't have to prove anything, just plant seeds of doubt in the public's mind.

How much support do you need for the theory, anyway? How many more decades of data is required? What will happen if I finally show you my hand? Will you find an idiotic blog like I just did claiming climatology isn't even a science*, maybe you'll come with a National Review article written by someone as far removed from the field as you or I, or you might even just come up with more banal snark. In short, it's a useless waste of time to give you more support than you've already been offered.

*The blog appears to have been written by an accountant. Again, it's people without credentials in climatology that are the skeptics and not people you would even suspect have any concept of what they're talking about.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-11-25, 10:12:45
Proper usage of "your" and "you're" is expected from literate posters.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-25, 12:06:16
All I've seen Midnight do is call people who would DARE to disagree with the "accepted, ancient and true" CAGW names. I begin to suspect--- strongly--- that this is how "97% consensus" came about: Anybody who disagreed was shamed into signing on, and if shame wouldn't work then threats of having funding cut, or even of being driven from the community would surely make the holdouts toe the line. Midnight's efforts here give rise to that idea as it happens.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-25, 18:26:23
Oh please. For of, might I reiterate that I never said 97% was correct. However, the methodology used to attempt to debunk that was worse the methodology used to obtain that figure. It was so bad that at least one skeptic had to redact his counter survey and admit it's the majority opinion of climatologists. The counter studies played fast and loose with the articles they included to the point in which op-ed pieces written by people with no scientific background at all were thrown in as a desperate attempt to arrive at a lower figure.  

As far as losing funding goes, that's just silly. Anthony Watts, a dropout with no credentials at all on the subject, received funding. Climatologists that should be expected to know what they're talking about would have little trouble securing a grant from a group motivated to disprove anthropogenic climate change. Even failing to directly secure a grant, there would still be a market selling the work to conservative/right-wing publications. Nobody is prevented from getting his work published. Unfortunately, the quality of the skeptical studies remains sub-par at this point even relying on outdated and disproven notions.

The skeptics' main culprit for climate change is solar activity. The sun does go through 11 year cycles of increased and decreased activity, That's the average length of cycles, not that every cycle is 11 years. Not a bad notion and it would be silly to dismiss the sun's role in global temperatures. However, before the current period of lower activity, even the sun's activity was insufficient to explain the rise in global temperatures and the temperatures continued to rise even after solar activity decreased. Some tried to point there would be residual heat from the period of increased activity, which is true enough but at the same time silly considering the sun's activity couldn't explain all the global warming when the increased activity period was at it's height. Hence, the best counter-theory is objectively wrong and not for political reasons but scientific ones based on empirical data. The other theory blames cosmic rays, which added a whole 0.07 degrees Celsius to the average global temperature, which amounts to 14%.  So again, we have a natural source of warming but no other explanation missing 86%.  Further, the authors noted that CO2 indeed plays a significant role. There might be other natural causes, but I doubt they'll be able to close that gap. Further, nobody is saying that all climate change is anthropogenic anyway.

Neither of the theories was silenced or excluded from publication and the authors did not have resort right-wing ragpieces.  Full Text of the solar activity study in Cambridge Journals  (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=395857&jid=IAU&volumeId=2004&issueId=IAUS223&aid=288608&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1743921304006775=) And  here's the link to the cosmic ray's theory  (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026723423896). Who was shamed and driven from the scientific again? As usual, in the scientific world it's about factually correct and incorrect, not about politics. Again, though, the cosmic rays theory isn't incorrect, just insufficient to explain the majority of warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-25, 23:56:10
An American discussion...  :zzz:
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-26, 03:28:38
Yeah, sorry that's it's boring. It's just that a couple forum members needed to be shown that other theories are given consideration based on scientific merit and nobody is made to "toe the line."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-27, 16:50:53
Aw, do we not have answer to the fact other causes of climate change do get considered? I also wonder how many of the genius skeptics ever, even once, stopped to think that some same scientists they deride for suggesting most of the current climate change is manmade are the very ones that discovered that the climate changed without human intervention in the past. Those folks cleverly suggest there are natural climate cycles. Some of the general public, especially GOPers, consider that a good argument. The rest of roll our eyes and say "No shit, Sherlock. Now where's your data to suggest the current climate change isn't manmade?" and walk away to the sound of crickets. (again though, the cosmic rays guys did have data to say those that not all of what's happening now is anthropogenic and admit to CO2's role)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-27, 19:29:05
Mid, I don't know about how Oakdale feels--- but I've reached the point where ignoring you seems to be the right idea.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-27, 22:57:53
The link below is from a source that certain people here consider "tainted". Go ahead and consider it tainted, you were gonna do that anyway.

It does point out something that I've been saying though: That "97% consensus" might not be quite as firm a number as we are being led to believe. There may be dissension within the ranks--- but those dissenters are told to shut up "or else". The scientist quoted in the link below dared to dissent, and for that she is banished from the climate community. Seems the warmist cult will stand for no questioning their dogma. See below:

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/ (http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-11-28, 05:39:48
Ity is a small passing point compared to the global situation but it has just been reported here in Scotland that there still 73 snow patches in northern Scotland from the winter of last year. They did no disappear at all during the summer.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-28, 09:45:40
The most credentialed "scientist" behind the 97% meme: Cook (http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3). He seems to be...literate. But he's shown himself to be scientifically illiterate.
Of course, no one who has any training in science would have accepted that "97%" meme; consensus means nothing, to science -- but much to scientism, and career advancement! :)
Yet many (...you know who you are!) repeat it, despite its illegitimacy.
Why?
Well, there actually is an overwhelming political agenda: World government, and -perhaps- the demise of capitalism.
This, of course, sounds like a "conspiracy theory" and rightly so! But it's been a goal of so many groups for so many years that their persistent connivance and support of the CAGW crusade seems merely the next stage of their battle...

The sociology is fascinating! (The lack of interest of qualified sociologists is, too!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-28, 12:38:15
Well, there actually is an overwhelming political agenda: World government, and -perhaps- the demise of capitalism.
This, of course, sounds like a "conspiracy theory" and rightly so! But it's been a goal of so many groups for so many years that their persistent connivance and support of the CAGW crusade seems merely the next stage of their battle...

Saying such things doesn't really suits you well Oakdale...

The "overwhelming political agenda" is indeed overwhelming but not political, by the contrary, is a matter of changing energetic paradigms. It's a matter of changing from a model based on finite and polluting resources that leads inexorably to higher and higher costs and an increasing fight for such resources to a model where energy is free but to the technology costs that decreases year after year. Limitless energy for all. Without polluting.

What part is so difficult to you to understand? It turns evident who has and defends a mere political agenda.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-28, 16:30:24
You know what guys? I've had it. Why do I keep getting accused of personal attacks? And now I'm going to be ignored? For what? I said:

Quote
Oh please. For of, might I reiterate that I never said 97% was correct. However, the methodology used to attempt to debunk that was worse the methodology used to obtain that figure. It was so bad that at least one skeptic had to redact his counter survey and admit it's the majority opinion of climatologists. The counter studies played fast and loose with the articles they included to the point in which op-ed pieces written by people with no scientific background at all were thrown in as a desperate attempt to arrive at a lower figure.  

As far as losing funding goes, that's just silly. Anthony Watts, a dropout with no credentials at all on the subject, received funding. Climatologists that should be expected to know what they're talking about would have little trouble securing a grant from a group motivated to disprove anthropogenic climate change. Even failing to directly secure a grant, there would still be a market selling the work to conservative/right-wing publications. Nobody is prevented from getting his work published. Unfortunately, the quality of the skeptical studies remains sub-par at this point even relying on outdated and disproven notions.

The skeptics' main culprit for climate change is solar activity. The sun does go through 11 year cycles of increased and decreased activity, That's the average length of cycles, not that every cycle is 11 years. Not a bad notion and it would be silly to dismiss the sun's role in global temperatures. However, before the current period of lower activity, even the sun's activity was insufficient to explain the rise in global temperatures and the temperatures continued to rise even after solar activity decreased. Some tried to point there would be residual heat from the period of increased activity, which is true enough but at the same time silly considering the sun's activity couldn't explain all the global warming when the increased activity period was at it's height. Hence, the best counter-theory is objectively wrong and not for political reasons but scientific ones based on empirical data. The other theory blames cosmic rays, which added a whole 0.07 degrees Celsius to the average global temperature, which amounts to 14%.  So again, we have a natural source of warming but no other explanation missing 86%.  Further, the authors noted that CO2 indeed plays a significant role. There might be other natural causes, but I doubt they'll be able to close that gap. Further, nobody is saying that all climate change is anthropogenic anyway.

Neither of the theories was silenced or excluded from publication and the authors did not have resort right-wing ragpieces. Full Text of the solar activity study in Cambridge Journals And here's the link to the cosmic ray's theory . Who was shamed and driven from the scientific again? As usual, in the scientific world it's about factually correct and incorrect, not about politics. Again, though, the cosmic rays theory isn't incorrect, just insufficient to explain the majority of warming.


Where am I personally attacking any forum member? The thrust of the post was discussing other theories that had been considered.

Quote
Aw, do we not have answer to the fact other causes of climate change do get considered? I also wonder how many of the genius skeptics ever, even once, stopped to think that some same scientists they deride for suggesting most of the current climate change is manmade are the very ones that discovered that the climate changed without human intervention in the past. Those folks cleverly suggest there are natural climate cycles. Some of the general public, especially GOPers, consider that a good argument. The rest of roll our eyes and say "No shit, Sherlock. Now where's your data to suggest the current climate change isn't manmade?" and walk away to the sound of crickets. (again though, the cosmic rays guys did have data to say those that not all of what's happening now is anthropogenic and admit to CO2's role)
Again, where am I personally attacking at forum member?

By the way, I did see that since deleted post of Oakdale's accusing me racism for not accepting Duarte's blog post. I wasn't gonna bring that up, but my hand was forced by you guys acting like I'm the nasty one.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-28, 18:25:06

Ity is a small passing point compared to the global situation but it has just been reported here in Scotland that there still 73 snow patches in northern Scotland from the winter of last year. They did no disappear at all during the summer.


I just read a report that some of those patches have been there since 1994. OK, far enough North, maybe in shady spots and so on---- so that's two reports I've seen of this counting yours.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-29, 01:29:32
[it's] a matter of changing energetic paradigms. It's a matter of changing from a model based on finite and polluting resources that leads inexorably to higher and higher costs and an increasing fight for such resources to a model where energy is free but to the technology costs that decreases year after year. Limitless energy for all. Without polluting.
Nobody's stopping such marvelous advances in technology...
So: What are you arguing?
What part is so difficult to you to understand?
The part where you say anything other than Repent! (I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your "religion" of pseudo-environmentalism.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: About that meme that Big Oil finances "climate denialism": Briggs has a recent article (https://stream.org/big-money-in-global-warming-alarmism/)... :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-11-29, 09:16:55
Well mjsmsprt40 - just goes to show the contrasts!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-29, 11:44:32
Nobody's stopping such marvelous advances in technology...
So: What are you arguing?

I'm arguing that your denialism of climate change it's entirely based in defending energetic policies based at controlling world energy supply by controlling oil.
Therefore being crucial to you to deny climate change as a direct consequence of human activity using hydrocarbons as the main energy source.

You simply don't care about destroying the entire planet if that maintains your country on top of the ruins..
You're wrong.

Even oil industry realized that. "Beyond Petrol" says BP advertisement... (They just will not lost profits until the last drop of oil.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-29, 16:50:55
You simply don't care about destroying the entire planet [...]
When the hype surpasses the reality by such lengths, reason is a futile tactic: You'll believe what you will...
if that maintains your country on top of the ruins..
And attribute motives in like hyperbole.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-29, 18:54:03
Belfrager has long past the point of no return in this discussion. We're Americans, therefore we're evil and our every motive is bad all the time, according to him. Ho hum.

The fact is that it's just a wee bit harder than banning all fossil fuels by this time tomorrow and going to a windfarm/solar power utopia. Things just don't work that way.

Look how long it took to replace the horse and buggy with the automobile. Decades. Even now you can find places where they will not use the automobile, and still use the horse and buggy as their means of transportation.

Wind-farms and solar power may come into their own someday. Right now, no plan exists that I know of that doesn't depend heavily on government subsidies, no plan exists that is commercially viable. (At least, not here in the States.) In the meantime fossil fuels get the job done for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-29, 19:35:01
Wind-farms and solar power may come into their own someday. Right now, no plan exists that I know of that doesn't depend heavily on government subsidies, no plan exists that is commercially viable. (At least, not here in the States.) In the meantime fossil fuels get the job done for the foreseeable future.

What happens is that you don't pay the full price for your fossil fuels, you simply postpone the full price payment of it's usage for the next generations to pay while happily destroying the entire planet.

Renewable energies don't need any subsidies, what's necessary is to simply forbidden fossil fuels as an environmental crime.

We are comparing the full price of renewable energies with less than one tenth of the price of fossil fuels consequences.
Belfrager has long past the point of no return in this discussion. We're Americans, therefore we're evil and our every motive is bad all the time, according to him. Ho hum.

Never said that. Just touched the point why Oakdale and probably you are against climate change, for energetic consumption protectionism and oil control.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-29, 21:16:32
OK, Bel---- you're on. Prove that I have any control over oil usage, beyond what I use in my vehicle. Prove that I set prices, that I in any way compel other people to use more oil and so on.

While we're at it, prove that I am against climate change. From what I understand, the Earth's climate has been see-sawing between cool and warm for eons. In fact, when this globe first came into existence it was a flaming ball of hot rocks, couldn't possibly support life as we know it. It's cooled down quite a bit from "hottest ever" status, from the look of things. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea how you stop a planet this size from changing its climate whenever it does so. I have no idea, supposing for a moment that CO2 is the bogeyman everybody says it is, how you would moderate it so you don't go from warming to ice-age---- and neither do your favorite scientists.

You said it, so presumably you can prove it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-30, 02:39:24
What happens is that you don't pay the full price for your fossil fuels, you simply postpone the full price payment of it's usage for the next generations to pay while happily destroying the entire planet.
Ah! The Social Justice and Marxist/Post-Modernist tropes of "externalities"...even when they're imaginary! :)
Next, you'll take up full-blown Liberation Theology!
----------------------------------------------------
On the "renewables" side, many of us on the right side of sanity have long known what (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/11/28/1426203/peter-thiel-we-need-a-new-atomic-age) Peter Thiel wrote in the NY Times recently... But the "environmentalist/green/Luddite" fellow travelers wouldn't have it: The earth might go Boom! you know... :)

Before the tsunami that destroyed Fukushima's light-water reactor, the only reactor to go critical was a Russian weapons manufactory at Chernoble... And Fukushima's reactor didn't go critical.
Still the anti-nuke forces persist. And fools believe their tripe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bel is obviously a BIG fan of the Walking Dead... (His preferred apocalypse: Nothing truly human survives!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-11-30, 16:48:36
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quotehd.com%2Fimagequotes%2Fauthors7%2Ftaylor-caldwell-author-quote-giving-a-phenomenon-a-label-does-not.jpg&hash=5b88e6891f6fe9145855dab86ae43781" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors7/taylor-caldwell-author-quote-giving-a-phenomenon-a-label-does-not.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-12-01, 00:57:32
Ah! The Social Justice and Marxist/Post-Modernist tropes of "externalities"...even when they're imaginary!  :) 
Next, you'll take up full-blown Liberation Theology!

Dogs barks and the caravan passes.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-01, 07:32:01
the caravan passes
Across the desert. The dog barks at intruders...
What leads people across the desert? :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-01, 20:08:08
These super-agencies have so much power to force individual nations to toe the line.

Really?

Japan says it's going to kill 300 whales--- whaling ban or no.

India is "flashing the finger" at any agency that tries to stop it from burning coal. China is pretty much doing the same. India says it won't let renewable energy in unless coal works alongside it.


Fun, ain't it?

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/01/india-china-planned-coal-plants-could-blow-un-warming-target/
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-02, 00:01:38