Jump to content

hijack from Climate Change


drumbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2020 at 2:55 AM, FishandChips said:

Is Climate change such a big issue we need to step back and reexamine the whole issue ?. One website says its a critical issue another site tells me its a hoax. I am really confused now one guy was telling me its a hoax fabricated by socialists and feminists. What are your thoughts ?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

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.

Quote

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,

!

Moderator Note

Posting claims like this without evidence is not an argument made in good faith.

 

 

Quote

Well I'm surprised they couldn't get 100% of scientists to agree on that one, because it's a given. 

!

Moderator Note

You would do well to understand what scientific uncertainty is. It might keep you from posting nonsense

 

 

 

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

and whether we should bombing the global economy into the dark ages to try and stop it.

!

Moderator Note

Hyperbole, especially unsupported hyperbole such as this, has no place in the discussion. (IOW, make your case, with support, that this will have an adverse effect, and keep the pejorative language out of it)

If all you want to do is post some zingers, take it elsewhere. This is a science discussion site. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

Posting claims like this without evidence is not an argument made in good faith.

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)?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Hyperbole, especially unsupported hyperbole such as this, has no place in the discussion.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate models have done very well - it is just a matter of faith amongst climate science deniers that they have not. Most people taken in by that rhetoric are not going to check.

There are technologies currently existing that will allow high levels of prosperity with low emissions - it is just a matter of faith that they do not exist or using them will result in dark age poverty.

It is a much promoted and nasty stereotype of climate concerned extremists that we want people to go without stuff and would welcome de-industrialisation. The reality is we can see a profound risk to long term prosperity - that would lead to widescale poverty and misery and is effectively irreversible - and we seek to address it... to prevent dark age style poverty. And the means we are pressing ahead with involve more industrialisation, not less, more technology, not less - and the technologies are best done by free enterprise industrialists and work best in democracies with the rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, drumbo said:

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

No it isn't "well known". Round here, it is well-known that models predict a range of outcomes (because that is how modelling works) and that the mid-range forecasts have been in line with what has happened. That is why you need to support your claims.

For example:

Quote

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
For those who still don’t believe in global warming, the science has had it right for half a century now.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, drumbo said:

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. 

!

Moderator Note

Going moon-landing-hoax is not a winning play on a science board. There is plenty of evidence the landings happened.

 
8 hours ago, drumbo said:

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.  

!

Moderator Note

If true, it should not be difficult to show this. In any event, it is not being offered as an option - it is a requirement for your continued participation. 

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, drumbo said:

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?

So what is more likely: that countries will deliberately plunge into a new "dark age" or that the target will be missed? 

(Assuming that the claimed target exists and that no suitable technologies exist. I am now sceptical about both of these "facts" simply because it is you that has stated them. And based on past evidence, you are not a credible source.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So what is more likely: that countries will deliberately plunge into a new "dark age" or that the target will be missed? 

(Assuming that the claimed target exists and that no suitable technologies exist. I am now sceptical about both of these "facts" simply because it is you that has stated them. And based on past evidence, you are not a credible source.)

 

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.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

No it isn't "well known". Round here, it is well-known that models predict a range of outcomes (because that is how modelling works) and that the mid-range forecasts have been in line with what has happened. That is why you need to support your claims.

For example:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Feel free to visit https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

<snip>

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.

Why do you care so much... That you're willing to lie, to prevent a change (for the better, even if you doubt the projections, people die everyday because we burn everything we dig out of the ground), that will probably have no impact on your daily life?

Unless you're a smoker, increased taxes on tobacco will not affect you.

Sooo, what's you're angle? You own a coal-fuelled power station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Feel free to visit https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ 

There. That wasn't so painful was it.

Quote

If you are skeptical of well known facts which can be verified within 5 seconds

I am sceptical of people who make claims that they are unwilling to support.

I am tired of people whose idea of a reference is "why don't you google it".

43 minutes ago, drumbo said:

the U.N.’s climate models just don't work.

The fact you claim they are "the UN's climate models" just shows the level of your intellectual dishonesty. 

Not worth wasting any more pixels on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, drumbo said:

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".

If you understood the way 'greenhouse' gases work you'd know why this is.
Temperatures during daytime are primarily due to radiation from the Sun, at a characteristic 'black body' ( temp of approx. 4000 deg ) frequency/wavelength such that only a minute portion of the energy is in the proper range to excite the CO2 intermolecular bonds.
Night-time or low sunlight temperatures are more affected by re-radiation of heat by the Earth, at a much lower 'black body' temperature ( 20 deg ), so it is mostly in the infrared/microwave range, easily absorbed by CO2 ( and water vapor ), and a large portion of it is re-re-radiated back towards the Earth.
IOW, Heat accumulated during the day, Cannot be fully re-radiated at night, and average temps increase.

There is absolutely no question regarding the science of GH gases.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, drumbo said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

You lifted this verbatim from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models. Trying to pass off the words of others as your own is plagiarism, and it's against our rules. Further, if you're just going to post copypasta and NOT answers questions posed to you regarding the material you're using, you're not arguing in good faith, which is also against the rules. Further posts that are less discussion and more agenda-driven will be tossed in the Trash. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Rebuttals to this article point out cherry-picking of data and misleading arguments, which are also arguments that are not in good faith.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why do you care so much... That you're willing to lie, to prevent a change (for the better, even if you doubt the projections, people die everyday because we burn everything we dig out of the ground), that will probably have no impact on your daily life?

Unless you're a smoker, increased taxes on tobacco will not affect you.

Sooo, what's you're angle? You own a coal-fuelled power station?

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".

3 hours ago, Strange said:

There. That wasn't so painful was it.

I am sceptical of people who make claims that they are unwilling to support.

I am tired of people whose idea of a reference is "why don't you google it".

The fact you claim they are "the UN's climate models" just shows the level of your intellectual dishonesty. 

Not worth wasting any more pixels on.

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".

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Bog standard climate science deniers memes, not worth the rebutting. Goodbye Drumbo.

Referring to valid points as memes and running away. Is this in "good faith"?

55 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Rebuttals to this article point out cherry-picking of data and misleading arguments, which are also arguments that are not in good faith.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/

 

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave a fairly clear explanation of how greenhouse gases work.
But you totally ignored my reply...

I tried to engage in an informative discussion; no-one else seems to be willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

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.

One could just say "No, you're wrong" but I doubt you would accept that as a rebuttal. Even though it has the same amount of support that you made in your first post. 

 

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

 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?

Then again, that's basically your argument here, so perhaps I'm wrong about that.

"Are too!" "Nuh uh" is a grade school argument. Please make your own arguments, and back them with science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:

One could just say "No, you're wrong" but I doubt you would accept that as a rebuttal. Even though it has the same amount of support that you made in your first post. 

 

Then again, that's basically your argument here, so perhaps I'm wrong about that.

"Are too!" "Nuh uh" is a grade school argument. Please make your own arguments, and back them with science.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn’t it cute that here in 2020 there still exist a small handful of small minded climate change deniers? I guess it’s be cuter if their ignorance didn’t come with such consequences on the wellbeing of humanity for not taking the threat seriously. On this topic, false positives are so much less risky than false negatives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, drumbo said:

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".

I don't care about your (not an) insult, all I want to know is "Why do YOU care so much"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • 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.