Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Damned commie.
    Murican vodka.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Murican vodka.
      Communist inspired, my dear fellow traveler!
      Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
      Hyperwar, Whats New
      World War II Resources
      The best place in the world to "work".

      Comment


      • Already posted. (Page 2, post #16)
        Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Nick, my friend, I don't need to convert you... life is converting you...
          If I were an anti AGW'er, and wanted to convert others to my POV, perhaps a new approach could be considered.

          First, I would not alienate people by introducing terms that polarize positions. I would be inclusive rather than exclusive.

          Then, I would talk about the science, and the science only. Any political jargon I would dump immediately.

          Personally I would begin with received wisdom, and start with one graph, one that agrees with the BBC/NASA/IPCC/et-al POV.

          I would then post a graph on what I believe is really going on.

          Both graphs would have exactly the same scale and relevance to the issue at hand. My graph would be based on absolute fact. It would be absolutely irrefutable as far as facts are concerned, ie a whole truth, and not a partial truth/lie. My graph would also illuminate why my opponents opinion is wrong.

          My post, consisting of only two graphs, would reveal why my opinion is better than that of mainstream science. My post would be simple, crystal clear and squaddie proof. It would not be complicated, self-righteous or extreme.

          Just a thought .
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Shocking... Dana Perino didn't know the difference between fabricated and homogenized data... I seriously doubt the Politifact writer did either.
            Last edited by The Doctor; 14 Feb 15, 18:25.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
              If I were an anti AGW'er, and wanted to convert others to my POV, perhaps a new approach could be considered.

              First, I would not alienate people by introducing terms that polarize positions. I would be inclusive rather than exclusive.

              Then, I would talk about the science, and the science only. Any political jargon I would dump immediately.

              Personally I would begin with received wisdom, and start with one graph, one that agrees with the BBC/NASA/IPCC/et-al POV.

              I would then post a graph on what I believe is really going on.

              Both graphs would have exactly the same scale and relevance to the issue at hand. My graph would be based on absolute fact. It would be absolutely irrefutable as far as facts are concerned, ie a whole truth, and not a partial truth/lie. My graph would also illuminate why my opponents opinion is wrong.

              My post, consisting of only two graphs, would reveal why my opinion is better than that of mainstream science. My post would be simple, crystal clear and squaddie proof. It would not be complicated, self-righteous or extreme.

              Just a thought .
              I love you like a brother Nick... And in our family, that meant a lifetime of teasing, insults and a bit of brawling. However, I don't have any interest in teaching or proselytizing. I just like to ridicule Gorebots, Enviromarxists and the word I promised not to use anymore even though it was an accurate neologism.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                Already posted. (Page 2, post #16)
                I don't read paisley.
                Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                Hyperwar, Whats New
                World War II Resources
                The best place in the world to "work".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                  You do know that I'm a self employed, take no money from the state, am ex army, and a politically right of centre guy? I'm also straight, married and have kids I raise and take to church every Sunday. Not very, what you might say, liberal type of person.

                  I used to be Green at university, because right wing dudes never got laid unless they were rich.
                  Not true! I got lots of action in freshman science courses like astronomy full of liberal arts major women who wanted an A for the course and recognized that the dude taking the class "for fun" that the prof was making a defacto TA or military history classes where I was a friend of the professor... They made it a point to "get friendly." Who was I to argue with nerd getting laid?



                  Comment


                  • Great post, Bob

                    Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    If global warming is a hoax, then why is it accepted by virtually the entirety of the developed world? Every reputable scientific body states that not only is the climate changing for the warmer, but human activity is almost certain (greater than 90% likelihood) to be the root cause.



                    The reason why some find it so hard to accept is that they believe the propaganda put forth by big business so that they can continue to exploit our natural resources for their personal financial gain.

                    Having said this, no matter how badly humans trash the planet now will make little difference in the long term climate-wise: the Earth is still in the so-called "Ice Ages." Human civilization has grown up in the roughly 10,000 year span after the last cold period. In another 10,000 to 15,000 years, the glaciers will return, and we will have to wait thousands more years for them to withdraw again. We are in a warm spot between glacial retreats, and no number of species we selfishly kill off or greenhouse gasses we emit will stave off the inevitable return of the ice.

                    HOWEVER, what we DO need to avoid are the ozone-depleting Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), that leave us vulnerable to solar radiation. A return to ice age conditions will not fix this. (Thankfully we have cut down hard on these since the '70s.)

                    Global Warming is no hoax, and it would be dangerous to treat it as such. We humans have only got one planet, and it would be suicidal to abuse it.
                    Hi Bob:
                    What you have now encountered is the Chinese wall of BS artists that haunt this site, and just 'Don't Get' cause and effect.

                    It doesn't matter that there were massive climate swings twelve thousand to two million years ago- we operate in the here and now. And- you are absolutely correct- its occurring- and it is measured.
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                      Hi Bob:
                      What you have now encountered is the Chinese wall of BS artists that haunt this site, and just 'Don't Get' cause and effect.

                      It doesn't matter that there were massive climate swings twelve thousand to two million years ago- we operate in the here and now. And- you are absolutely correct- its occurring- and it is measured.
                      Not in this century according to...

                      The folks hired to keep an eye on Roy Spencer...



                      The Climategate CRU...



                      The "BEST" data according to most greent***s...



                      There has been no global warming since the end of the 20th century...



                      The rate and magnitude of late 20th century warming was indistinguishable from that of the early 20th century...



                      The rate of change in the early 21st century has been very similar to that of the mid 20th century...




                      As a scientific theory AGW fails since at least 2001...



                      If we look at the ~50 years of instrumental CO2 measurements... A cross-plot HadCRUT4 vs. Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 record sort of supports the AGW hypothesis from 1977-1997...



                      From 1958-1976, the globe was cooling while CO2 rose and since 1998, the globe has not been warming despite rising CO2 levels. AGW appears to work over about 40% of the instrumental CO2 record.

                      Let's now climb into the "Way Back Machine"... Let's go back 2,000 years in time...



                      The Gorebots insist that the Antarctic ice core CO2 record is unimpeachable (it isn't). If so, it got really warm about 1,000 years ago without any assistance from CO2.

                      Let's take the "Way Back Machine" back to the Late Pleistocene...



                      Looks like CO2 and temperature might just have been playing ball by Gorebot rules back then... Except for the fact that delta-CO2 lags behind the delta-T by an average of 800 years in each glacial-interglacial cycle.

                      Let's take the Way Back Machine back to a time when glaciers were few and far between...



                      Anybody see a relationship supportive of a carbon cycle-driven climate cycle? I sure don't.

                      There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature across geologic time.

                      As a "theory" AGW worked for about 21 out of the last 540,000,000 years. This works out to 0.000004% of 1/9 of Earth history..

                      If I scale the last 4.5 billion years to a 24 hour day. We actually have about 3 hours of geologic time available for analysis; the AGW hypothesis works for about 0.0004 seconds.

                      There is very little evidence that anthropogenic carbon compound emissions have had or will have a significant effect on global temperatures and no evidence at all that anthropogenic warming has been or will be catastrophic.

                      So... Why would.the wholesale destruction of liberty and prosperity make any sense at all?
                      Last edited by The Doctor; 15 Feb 15, 09:40.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                        So basically what you are saying is that the variability of the past 140 years is too 'compact' to be registered through a historical proxy reconstruction?

                        If I understand your argument correctly, the variations experienced since ~1850 could have been duplicated at various points in recent history, but the proxy reconstructions are too general to perceive them, therefore we should be cautious about proclaiming our time period 'unique'?
                        More or less the way it works is this. In modern times the weather data is sampled daily. However, the further back in time, the more "averaging" of the data occurs due to the proxies in use.

                        For example, if you look at air bubbles in ice cores each bubble might represent say 100 years of averaged climate. Furthermore, as the ice evolves, some amount gas will "leak" from these bubble making the data inaccurate. Vertical motions of these bubble as they ice flows across the land surface will also move them up/down and make the exact time of the bubble formation more and more error prone and more and more averaged over the time period "assumed" by the depth of the bubble in the ice.

                        As you go further back in time say (millions of years) you proxy data becomes averaged over even a longer time period such as 1,000-10,000 years depending on the proxy.

                        When you look at the modern data, you see every spike an dip very clearly so comparing it directly with ancient data is a LIE. To correctly display the comparison, the modern data needs to be averaged over the same time period as the ancient data. When you do this, the short term variation of the climate disappears because the short term noise is averaged out. This is why they don't do this, because then the actual facts don't line up with the AGW claims.

                        Layman generally don't know how to statistically analyze and process signals/data. In fact many so called scientists don't either. Especially in fields that are weak in math (e.g. psychologists).

                        There are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." (quote by Mark Twain). Know the difference.
                        Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                          More or less the way it works is this. In modern times the weather data is sampled daily. However, the further back in time, the more "averaging" of the data occurs due to the proxies in use.

                          For example, if you look at air bubbles in ice cores each bubble might represent say 100 years of averaged climate. Furthermore, as the ice evolves, some amount gas will "leak" from these bubble making the data inaccurate. Vertical motions of these bubble as they ice flows across the land surface will also move them up/down and make the exact time of the bubble formation more and more error prone and more and more averaged over the time period "assumed" by the depth of the bubble in the ice.

                          As you go further back in time say (millions of years) you proxy data becomes averaged over even a longer time period such as 1,000-10,000 years depending on the proxy.

                          When you look at the modern data, you see every spike an dip very clearly so comparing it directly with ancient data is a LIE. To correctly display the comparison, the modern data needs to be averaged over the same time period as the ancient data. When you do this, the short term variation of the climate disappears because the short term noise is averaged out. This is why they don't do this, because then the actual facts don't line up with the AGW claims.

                          Layman generally don't know how to statistically analyze and process signals/data. In fact many so called scientists don't either. Especially in fields that are weak in math (e.g. psychologists).

                          There are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." (quote by Mark Twain). Know the difference.
                          The proxy data also often have very sparse sample rates. Their Nyquist frequencies are much lower than instrumental data.

                          This is particularly significant when merging instrumental CO2 data with Antarctic ice core CO2 data. Most Antarctic ice cores cannot resolve less than century-scale CO2 shifts.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Okay, that enough data. AGW is confirmed. Mods, please lock this thread.
                            Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                            Hyperwar, Whats New
                            World War II Resources
                            The best place in the world to "work".

                            Comment


                            • "IT'S ALL JUNK SCIENCE..."
                              The Doctor
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                                Okay, that enough data. AGW is confirmed. Mods, please lock this thread.
                                They don't have enough bandwidth left - it ha s all been 'charted out'.

                                welcome to the 'lost church of the anti science chanting'....
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X