Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

About drumbo

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We can take care of the environment by not polluting it, but how can we control the climate? If we knew how to do that we could settle on Mars.
  2. That graph uses the purported manipulated data. The original data shows no warming trend for the past 20 years.
  3. There is substantial evidence that the IPCC's climate models do not work. They drastically over-predicted the amount of warming that would occur, and made at least two major adjustments to global surface temperature series' that concealed this. Sources: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297 These are not the only adjustments that have occurred. Almost all of the adjustments tended to make earlier years colder, which boosted the warming trend. It is very improbable that would happen without an intention to manipulate the data. I posted this fact earlier, and not only was no explanation or rebuttal given, the reply was deleted.
  4. Sure, I am claiming that records of the surface temperatures are badly compromised, and the sources for that claim were given before. Your "rebuttal" failed to disprove that. It is not cherry picking to use the only dataset which has not been manipulated. Did you even read the link you gave? It does not disprove the claim.
  5. It seems like not "arguing in good faith" is a favorite buzzphrase around here. What a convenient way to ignore any points that I make. It seems like that poor old horse gets trotted out any time someone makes an argument that can't be rebutted. I have yet to see you make an intelligent and constructive reply. This is not ad hominem, I have no doubt dimreepr is an intelligent person who has no issues stringing together a cogent thought, I'm sure he just chooses not to. It's just a pity that the moderators don't hold him to the same standards of discourse as they do myself. But of course, he's on the right side. One could say that holding your opponent to a higher level of discourse than those who agree with you is "not arguing in good faith". Well it is awfully convenient that you found a reason to ignore all the points I made. One could almost say that this is "not arguing in good faith". Referring to valid points as memes and running away. Is this in "good faith"? The data is not cherry-picked, it is the only data which has not been manipulated. I read through the synopsis of each article in the "rebuttal" you posted, and each synopsis does not indicate a true rebuttal. Not once do they demonstrate that the surface data has not been compromised, they merely dance around the issue by trying to undermine the precision of the satellite data, or claiming that the authors have not considered alternative explanations for the deviation between predicted and observed temperatures. Where is the rebuttal to the fact that adjustments have been made which consistently help the AGW narrative? Do you understand how unlikely that is and how dishonest that makes the AGW supporters look?
  6. Feel free to visit https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ and scroll down to the synopsis of chapter 2 which is "Showing how emissions can be brought to zero by mid-century stay within the small remaining carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C." and chapter 3 "Why is it necessary and even vital to maintain the global temperature increase below 1.5°C versus higher levels? Adaptation will be less difficult. Our world will suffer less negative impacts on intensity and frequency of extreme events, on resources, ecosystems, biodiversity, food security, cities, tourism, and carbon removal." If you are skeptical of well known facts which can be verified within 5 seconds of visiting the IPCC official website, then you should spend some time educating yourself before participating in a discussion. Real world data do not show the dramatic warming which climate models have predicted. There has only been slight warming, and most of it in winter and at night. From https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things "colder seasons are warming faster than warmer seasons" and "colder times of day are warming more than warmer times of day". According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly. Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Over-prediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy is not looking at surface temperatures, as measured by thermometers at weather stations. Instead, he is looking at temperatures measured from calibrated thermistors carried by weather balloons and data from satellites. Records of the surface temperatures have been badly compromised. Globally averaged thermometers show two periods of warming since 1900: a half-degree from natural causes in the first half of the 20th century, before there was an increase in industrial carbon dioxide that was enough to produce it, and another half-degree in the last quarter of the century. The latest U.N. science compendium asserts that the latter half-degree is at least half man made. But the thermometer records showed that the warming stopped from 2000 to 2014. Until they didn’t. In two of the four global surface series, data were adjusted in two ways that wiped out the “pause” that had been observed. The first adjustment changed how the temperature of the ocean surface is calculated, by replacing satellite data with drifting buoys and temperatures in ships’ water intake. The size of the ship determines how deep the intake tube is, and steel ships warm up tremendously under sunny, hot conditions. The buoy temperatures, which are measured by precise electronic thermistors, were adjusted upwards to match the questionable ship data. Given that the buoy network became more extensive during the pause, that’s guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data. The second big adjustment was over the Arctic Ocean, where there aren’t any weather stations. In this revision, temperatures were estimated from nearby land stations. This runs afoul of basic physics. Even in warm summers, there’s plenty of ice over much of the Arctic Ocean. Now, for example, when the sea ice is nearing its annual minimum, it still extends part way down Greenland’s east coast. As long as the ice-water mix is well-stirred (like a glass of ice water), the surface temperature stays at the freezing point until all the ice melts. So, extending land readings over the Arctic Ocean adds nonexistent warming to the record. Further, both global and United States data have been frequently adjusted. There is nothing scientifically wrong with adjusting data to correct for changes in the way temperatures are observed and for changes in the thermometers. But each serial adjustment has tended to make the early years colder, which increases the warming trend. That’s wildly improbable. In addition, thermometers are housed in standardized instrument shelters, which are to be kept a specified shade of white. Shelters in poorer countries are not repainted as often, and darker stations absorb more of the sun’s energy. It’s no surprise that poor tropical countries show the largest warming from this effect. All this is to say that the weather balloon and satellite temperatures used in Christy’s testimony are the best data we have, and they show that the U.N.’s climate models just don't work.
  7. But it is your request for evidence which is in bad faith, it's like asking someone to provide evidence that the moon landing was real. It is well known that all the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years of existence have predicted global warming much greater than has actually been observed, just like it's well known that the moon landing happened. If you are claiming that you did not already know that then it would reflect poorly upon your basic knowledge on this matter. Do you honestly doubt this is true (it is)? It is not hyperbole. The IPCC has clearly stated they want to bring net carbon emissions down to zero within the next thirty years. There is no technology currently existing that would allow that without a return to pre-industrial/dark ages levels of poverty. Where do you think all of the energy needed to run the civilization around you comes from?
  8. The IPCC certainly believes that climate change is a big issue, but the IPCC is a political institution not really a scientific one. It uses the science for its own ends which is why, for example, we've had cases of governments, Belgium, Germany, putting pressure on the IPCC to make their reports sound scarier than the scientific reality justifies. The much quoted 95% certainty that man influences climate figure is a classic example of this, it's a bit like getting people to say there is a 95% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Well yes the sun will rise tomorrow, but that's not really the subject that's being debated is it? It's what the temperatures will be in the future. It's a slight of hand, they're saying there is 95% certainty that man influences climate. Well I'm surprised they couldn't get 100% of scientists to agree on that one, because it's a given. The question is the degree to which man influences the climate, and whether if it is anything we should worry about, and whether we should bombing the global economy into the dark ages to try and stop it. All the computer models that the IPCC has used in its 25 years of existence, all of them have predicted/forecast global warming much greater than has actually been observed, and this represents a problem because what it means is that all these insistent claims that we need to take urgent measures now to deal with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science. The IPCC at the moment stands and falls on its computer models. There's no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem, it exists only in the imaginations of the people who program those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem. What we see in the latest reports is that the evidence suggests that the models aren't working, which means that the entirety of AGW theory is flawed.
  9. It is an important issue. Carbon dioxide is important for life to flourish. Right now we have too little carbon dioxide. Watch the video below by the scientist William Happer. William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H.W. Bush administration. In 2018, Happer joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration. https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs
  10. Chapter 2 in the IPCC special report of global warming of 1.5 °C https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ outlines a goal to to bring net carbon emissions down to 0. There is no technology that currently exists which would allow us to maintain our current level of energy consumption in this scenario. Not only are fossil fuels much more efficient than any other alternatives (in terms of cost and time to produce), they are more portable as well (in terms of the ease of transporting the fuel and the ease of storing it). It is likely that many people would suffer if we slashed energy consumption prematurely. In the article "Shifts to renewable energy can drive up energy poverty, study finds" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190712151926.htm. their findings, published recently in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, support previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Energy poverty is when a household has no or inadequate access to energy services such as heating, cooling, lighting, and use of appliances due to a combination of factors: low income, increasing utility rates, and inefficient buildings and appliances. In addition, according to a World Bank report, “poor and middle-income countries already account for just over half of total carbon emissions.” And this percentage will only rise as developing countries grow. Achieving a global society in which all citizens earn a living wage and climate catastrophe is averted requires breaking the link between economic growth and increasing carbon emissions in developing countries. Today, most developing countries that decrease their poverty rates also have increased rates of carbon emissions. In East Asia and the Pacific, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined from 1.1 billion to 161 million between 1981 and 2011—an 85% decrease. In this same time period, the amount of carbon dioxide per capita rose from 2.1 tons per capita to 5.9 tons per capita—a 185% increase. South Asia saw similar changes during this time frame. As the number of people living in extreme poverty decreased by 30%, the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 204%. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people living in poverty increased by 98% in this thirty-year span, while carbon dioxide per capita decreased by 17%. Given the current energy situation, if sub-Saharan Africans are to escape extreme poverty, they will have to increase their carbon use—unless developed countries step in to offer clean alternatives.
  11. I see that I struck so telling a blow, that not only are you running away with your tail between your legs, you also went back through this thread to downvote 5 of my replies. Many of which, ostensibly, you left untouched earlier. Did their contents change? I will reply later with a thorough explanation of why most of the major climate models in use today are practically useless.
  12. And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist? Where do you think the energy to create the civilization around you comes from? It is not moot if those scientists display their bias by unnecessarily stoking fear and focusing on potential negative outcomes. I am not sure if we should call them scientists either. Scientists are supposed to test if the hypotheses they have developed actually work. Have you seen some of the mathematical/statistical models these researchers use? Convoluted, ridiculous and utterly useless. Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison. Make no mistake, the goal with these convoluted models is to intimidate people into submission; "We've done the math. You're just too dumb to understand it. Shut up and trust the experts, us." Luckily I have a masters in applied math so I can tell when math is used in a BS fashion. Descartes said it best when he said: "Then as to the Analysis of the ancients and the Algebra of the moderns, besides that they embrace only matters highly abstract, and, to appearance, of no use, the former is so restricted to the consideration of figures, that it can exercise the Understanding only on condition of greatly fatiguing the Imagination; and, in the latter, there is so complete a subjection to certain rules and formulas, that there results an art full of confusion and obscurity calculated to embarrass." You brought up elk. I am addressing what you said. It's OK to be wrong.
  13. The evidence that elk could live a warm climate is overwhelming. In 1913, 83 elk from Yellowstone were transplanted in Arizona near Chevelon Lake in the Arizona White Mountains region. Even with harvesting via licensed hunting, today the Arizona elk population has grown to about 35,000. See the picture below of the western hemisphere range for elk.
  14. Look at the attached pictures.Their body structures are so similar that they could take up each other's habitats without issue. The elk has a little bit more insulation, but there is probably enough genetic variance for fur growth in the elk species that shorter furred elk could be selected for quickly in order to adapt to a hot climate.
  15. Anecdotal, and no proof of relation to AGW. Can we stick to facts please? That's not irony, and I think you meant to say "I automatically pretend I was kidding around when I get called out for saying something ridiculous". If you don't have the energy to engage in a rational discussion then why don't you just comfort yourself with some platitude like "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" and exit the conversation? At least then you can feel like you "won". Patently false. The event which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hypothesized to have been cataclysmic. Perhaps a massive meteor impact or volcanic eruption. These events would have caused far more rapid and dramatic changes than AGW ever could. I already mentioned a possible increase in arable land, and in the long term the benefits of colonizing Antarctica. Who knows how many natural resources Antarctica holds? For all we know unlocking it from it's icy grip could be they key to increasing human wealth and development.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.