Jump to content
beecee

climate change intensified the amount of rainfall in recent hurricanes

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Hockey sticks to you, and your citations. :D

!

Moderator Note

Sorry, no. That’s the price of admission. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Sorry, no. That’s the price of admission. 

 

Ok, since it went over your head, I cite the notorious hockey stick. (that never was) that's been lied about and air brushed ever since. And Al Gore, who got the Nobel prize for lying and bullshitting. Especially his choice "never mind the details" when he tried to con the world that the CO2 graph was leading the temperature graph, instead of the other way around.

In any case, it's in the nature of the process of misrepresenting climate, that it's done surreptitiously. The request for citations is a bit like denying that the mafia still exists by demanding details of what they're up to.

It's easy to give a false picture, without blatant lying. I've already mentioned how it's done, if one cared to read my post. You're just selective about what you use, and what you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Ok, since it went over your head, I cite the notorious hockey stick. (that never was) that's been lied about and air brushed ever since. And Al Gore, who got the Nobel prize for lying and bullshitting. Especially his choice "never mind the details" when he tried to con the world that the CO2 graph was leading the temperature graph, instead of the other way around.

In any case, it's in the nature of the process of misrepresenting climate, that it's done surreptitiously. The request for citations is a bit like denying that the mafia still exists by demanding details of what they're up to.

It's easy to give a false picture, without blatant lying. I've already mentioned how it's done, if one cared to read my post. You're just selective about what you use, and what you don't.

Are you a Steve Mcintyre acolyte?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are you a Steve Mcintyre acolyte?

The name doesn't ring a bell. In any case, I've never been anybody's acolyte, so the answer is no. 

As far as climate change goes, I think that the alarmist faction has a funny fixed idea of a world of "scientists" and "deniers". I personally am perfectly happy to acknowledge that of course CO2 has a well known greenhouse action. What I deny is all of the bullshit that goes with it, that computer models can accurately forecast climate over decades, that CO2 has caused one degree of warming, ( a big fat lie that's constantly repeated) and that warming will only ever have disastrous consequences, if it does happen. 

So yes, CO2 does catch some escaping heat energy. But NO, it doesn't trap it, as is constantly claimed. It re-emits it. What happens after that isn't accurately known. If it was, climate could be accurately forecast. It's mind-bogglingly arrogant to say that we can't identify an upcoming 18 year halt to warming, but we can confidently forecast the climate for the end of the century. I can't believe how people buy into that crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do blankets not continue to warm us despite not being perfect insulators? (Hint: the answer is yes)

One has to try really hard to remain obstinant and in opposition on this topic given all we know and all we’ve learned these last hundred plus years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do blankets not continue to warm us despite not being perfect insulators? (Hint: the answer is yes)

Quite right. Have a Nobel Prize.

Have you ever noticed though, that you don't keep getting hotter and hotter under your blanket? (Hint: temp magically levels off !!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Quite right. Have a Nobel Prize.

Have you ever noticed though, that you don't keep getting hotter and hotter under your blanket? (Hint: temp magically levels off !!)

Amazing. I wonder if it’s because there aren’t continued increases in the forcing agent in the blanket analogy.

However... Maybe if I kept farting inside the blanket and forcibly exhaling it would, in fact, get hotter? Perhaps that’s the closer analogy. 

I dunno. If only there were basic physics to help explain it or tests we could run. Unfortunately, there’s just no way to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Quite right. Have a Nobel Prize.

Have you ever noticed though, that you don't keep getting hotter and hotter under your blanket? (Hint: temp magically levels off !!)

Sweating's got nothing to do with it then? Nobody said C02 is a perfect insulator. Would you like me to take your spade off you. :)

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How normal have your guy's winters been in the UK? I can see some stuff online but don't have a good feel as to historical patterns there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

How normal have your guy's winters been in the UK? I can see some stuff online but don't have a good feel as to historical patterns there.

On the whole, milder and wetter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mistermack said:

I personally am perfectly happy to acknowledge that of course CO2 has a well known greenhouse action.

What about ocean acidification?  Even if CO2 had no effect on climate.... 

Its effect on the oceans is rapidly producing conditions that will significantly alter or crash the planetary food web.  

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Essay said:

What about ocean acidification?  Even if CO2 had no effect on climate.... 

Its effect on the oceans is rapidly producing conditions that will significantly alter or crash the planetary food web.  

~

Your summary isn't warranted by the article which by the way has all the hallmarks of a study set up to arrive at a certain conclusion, but even so, they say this    : This is all hypothetical, and it will take years of experimentation to determine how much of an effect the phytotransferrin-carbonate connection will have on ocean productivity,” cautions McQuaid. “Interestingly, the rapid injection of CO2 in the atmosphere has been tied to several of the earth’s mass extinction events, and these extinctions manifest themselves with particular intensity in the marine environment.             

Even that statement is deliberately misleading. They want you to conclude that CO2 was the cause of the extinctions, not a result of the cause, which can be volcanic or large impact or both. This is what bugs me about climate scientists/activists. They never miss a chance to give a false impression. Because they KNOW that they won't get ridiculed for it by their peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mistermack said:

Ok, since it went over your head, I cite the notorious hockey stick. (that never was) that's been lied about and air brushed ever since. And Al Gore, who got the Nobel prize for lying and bullshitting. Especially his choice "never mind the details" when he tried to con the world that the CO2 graph was leading the temperature graph, instead of the other way around.

In any case, it's in the nature of the process of misrepresenting climate, that it's done surreptitiously. The request for citations is a bit like denying that the mafia still exists by demanding details of what they're up to.

It's easy to give a false picture, without blatant lying. I've already mentioned how it's done, if one cared to read my post. You're just selective about what you use, and what you don't.

!

Moderator Note

I note a complete lack of citations for these claims. As you say, it's easy to give a false picture. That's why citations are important.

 
7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Your summary isn't warranted by the article which by the way has all the hallmarks of a study set up to arrive at a certain conclusion, but even so, they say this    : This is all hypothetical, and it will take years of experimentation to determine how much of an effect the phytotransferrin-carbonate connection will have on ocean productivity,” cautions McQuaid. “Interestingly, the rapid injection of CO2 in the atmosphere has been tied to several of the earth’s mass extinction events, and these extinctions manifest themselves with particular intensity in the marine environment.             

Even that statement is deliberately misleading. They want you to conclude that CO2 was the cause of the extinctions, not a result of the cause, which can be volcanic or large impact or both. This is what bugs me about climate scientists/activists. They never miss a chance to give a false impression. Because they KNOW that they won't get ridiculed for it by their peers.

!

Moderator Note

What is your evidence that this is the intent? You come to that conclusion, but then you have admitted that you have a bias that will lead you to that conclusion. But you haven't given any evidence that this is so. And have done so repeatedly, which is against the rules. Do better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is your evidence that this is the intent? You come to that conclusion, but then you have admitted that you have a bias that will lead you to that conclusion. But you haven't given any evidence that this is so. And have done so repeatedly, which is against the rules. Do better.

What I get from your aggressive moderation is a biased intention to stifle my posting on the subject. I could paralyse the thread if I demanded citations for every claim made. I'm not that passionate about it. If you want to kill the debate, you just had your way. Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2018 at 12:59 PM, mistermack said:

science" gets things wrong, on a regular basis.

No one said it doesn't. But the reason you know that it gets things wrong is because other scientists  investigating the same thing get different results. Within certain bounds, nearly all climate scientists have reached the same conclusion. 

We can therefore assume that the few outliers are the ones who have got the science wrong (especially after decades of repeated work). 

Skipping the libelous conspiracy theory nonsense...

On 22/11/2018 at 12:59 PM, mistermack said:

As I said, they are now all activists. 

 Perhaps that is because of the science. 

If scientists detected an Earth destroying meteor heading towards us would you dismiss their warnings because they had "become activists"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mistermack said:

What I get from your aggressive moderation is a biased intention to stifle my posting on the subject.

!

Moderator Note

Or, OR, other folks in the discussion want you to be as rigorous as they've been, and reported you. I think you'll agree, on such a contentious subject, supporting an argument with evidence is crucial. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mistermack said:

What I get from your aggressive moderation is a biased intention to stifle my posting on the subject. I could paralyse the thread if I demanded citations for every claim made. I'm not that passionate about it. If you want to kill the debate, you just had your way. Over and out.

!

Moderator Note

It is intended to stifle fact-free, unsupported assertions that have no place in a science discussion. It is meant to hobble the Gish-gallop. To block opinion masquerading as fact, cherry-picking, and other bad-faith arguments (e.g. casting an expectation of rigor as "aggressive moderation" as if this isn't de rigueur for SFN)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I could paralyse the thread if I demanded citations for every claim made.

And yet when citations are provided (eg. the papers referenced in the blog posts you despise) you ignore them and scream "bias", "activists", "blogs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a report put together by hundreds of experts on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA:

Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov

Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

If this were some sort of left-wing conspiracy, why didn't Trump stamp on this. Although, he would prefer it weren't published because it might cost him and his friends money. But, in the long run, it will cost a lot more if it is ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#fakenews 

If only we could get the right to start chanting “Lock Her Up” about atmospheric CO2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusations of deliberate, widespread bias and falsification of results, across every major institution (in several different nations) doing climate science and climate modelling really does require evidence.  Evidence of which, if this misconduct was really going on, would leave a much clearer trail than a couple of questionable phrases in one email exchange. There is no such evidence, just accusations or it would have come to light a long time ago.

Does anyone really think successive governments across the developed world, many with demonstrated hostility to climate science's reports and studies, could not uncover that extent of deliberate bias and collusion? Or that level of incompetence not be noticed within long running non-secret institutions where high standards - with everything on the record - are essential to everything they do? The claims of bias and incompetence are all accusation and no evidence.

We have agencies that can pick out guarded exchanges between anonymous terrorist conspirators but they can't catch out hundreds (thousands?) of published working scientists conspiring within and between legitimate government agencies? They haven't exposed this alleged conspiracy of incompetent science and world subjugation because it doesn't exist.

Making casual accusations against ordinary people doing their job (better than some people like) is, itself, a serious kind of wrongdoing (slander), besides being very insulting to people who, so far as evidence goes, have been doing their jobs with all the appropriate care and attention and honesty.

All that professional effort to work out how our climate system really works, only to be casually accused of being everything from colluding in incompetence to engaging in a global conspiracy!

What upsets me almost more than anything else, is that climate scientists have given us an extraordinary gift in the forewarning and foresight they have given. The window of time to transform the way we do energy has been precious beyond price; that we have been squandering it is not the fault of climate scientists failing to communicate. The persistent counter-messaging by opponents and obstructors is indicative of a far more insidious conspiracy of biased incompetence than even their made up version of conspiratorial climate scientists and green-socialist-globalists. In the face of that kind of politicking, and given the seriousness of the climate problem it is climate scientist who do not resort to advocacy that I find questionable.

Mistermack - I think you are too gullible and that you have been gulled. I don't expect you to believe anything from me even if you did give it due consideration. Or from Al Gore or from Greenpeace or whoever; however, I do think you should consider taking the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA, NSIDC, NASA, CSIRO, Hadley CRU and so on, seriously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be shooting in the dark here, but do any of you know anything about cloud-seeding? I am trying to do some research on it and wondered if any of you know anything about it and might be able to fill me in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.