Ignorance and science denial takes over the White House.

[Russell797]

Perhaps the only thing I will ever agree with Trump on

This costly nonsense has gone on long enough

I'm sorry to hear that you think that way. So you are a science denier too? Despite your support of rational thinking in the religion thread?

Costly nonsense? Gone on long enough? We only just got started to making a little bit of progress. Thankfully the rest of the world will continue on without us, as we become less and less a factor on the global scene.

 

[Russell797]

Climate change methods do not have either the accuracy nor the precision to tell us much
more than, “Such things happen, periodically”. They aren’t well informed at all, as anyone
that knows even a little about the science behind it realizes that’s all crackpot nonsense.
What’s weird about that is that people actually buy into that nonsense.

People like the National Academy of Sciences in every country? You know a little about what science? Oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, astronomy, solar physics, biology, radiative transfer theory? I sincerely doubt it. I have a masters degree in the atmospheric sciences and I don't know enough about many of those other fields to hold an informed opinion on their validity. I do trust the work of all those various sciences which impact on our understanding of Earth's climate and man's role in interfering with natural processes.

The loss in respect for the sciences in this country will be the end of us. We are a technological society 100% dependent upon science for our very existence in our current state.

 

[Jack Hays]

People like the National Academy of Sciences in every country? You know a little about what science? Oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, astronomy, solar physics, biology, radiative transfer theory? I sincerely doubt it. I have a masters degree in the atmospheric sciences and I don't know enough about many of those other fields to hold an informed opinion on their validity. I do trust the work of all those various sciences which impact on our understanding of Earth's climate and man's role in interfering with natural processes.

The loss in respect for the sciences in this country will be the end of us. We are a technological society 100% dependent upon science for our very existence in our current state.

The climate scientists have only themselves to blame. When science becomes advocacy then advocacy becomes science.

 

[Russell797]

The climate scientists have only themselves to blame. When science becomes advocacy then advocacy becomes science.

That's what I thought too. Shoot the messenger. It's the scientific community's fault. The Republicans should eliminate the National Academy of Sciences as well as the EPA and NASA's Earth science division. That will put a stop to the voice of science, and it's their own fault.

 

[longview]

Nonsense. It is not possible to nail down ECS to within 0.2C. Another misconception you guys hold is that there is "A" single value for ECS. In the past the global temperature has ranged from >10C colder than today to >18C warmer than today in just the last 700 million years. Anyone familiar with the paleoclimate history of the Earth knows that.

The past climates had different atmospherics ratios, and different amounts of input energy.
While we may not be able to tell specifically what the ECS will be, we can tell roughly what it has been.
There was roughly .2 C of warming before 1940, that did not go back down, If ECS is a feedback responce to input warming after an equalization period,
then we should see all of the amplified feedbacks of less than 75 years, in the record.
Of course we would need to subtract out the know warming inputs from the direct response of CO2.
Temp 1940 .08
CO2 1940 311.3 ppm

Temp 2014 .75
CO2 2014 400ppm
.75-.08= .67 C
1.73 X ln(400/311.3)= .43 C
.67-.43= .24 C
After considering the direct warming from the added CO2, there is only .24 C of possible amplified feeback,
but the number also include all the other unaccounted for variables like aerosol clearing, increases in TSI, ect.
So while we do not know how small ECS is, we can get a rough idea that it will not be more than
a .24 C output from a .28 C input (1880 to 1940 delta temp).
If we apply that same increase ratio to the input 1.2 C, we get a maximum of 2.22 C for ECS,
but we know there were other variables which have not been accounted for.
Some numbers out there place the warming from the TSI increase as much as .3 C for the last century,
if that number is accurate ECS could be a negative number!
I think the ECS will end up being a minor positive, based on published papers, and from my own looking at the input data.

 

[longview]

That's what I thought too. Shoot the messenger. It's the scientific community's fault. The Republicans should eliminate the National Academy of Sciences as well as the EPA and NASA's Earth science division. That will put a stop to the voice of science, and it's their own fault.

If the messenger is delivering known invalid information, and raising alarms where none are warranted,
perhaps it is time to question the messengers value!

 

[flogger]

I'm sorry to hear that you think that way. So you are a science denier too? Despite your support of rational thinking in the religion thread?

Costly nonsense? Gone on long enough? We only just got started to making a little bit of progress. Thankfully the rest of the world will continue on without us, as we become less and less a factor on the global scene.

By all means keep paying for it if you like. I looked at the science a decade ago and found there actually wasn't any that stood even the most cursory of empirical analysis. The rest is all politics be it Hockey Sticks shonky opinion polls or catatrophist scenarios.

We have been through warming phases like this dozens of times since the last glaciation and the ice core record shows this one is very modest in comparison to others both in its level and rate of change. In other words theres nothing whatsoever marking it out as unnatural.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I asked you for an example. You deflected. I'll ask again what research has been squashed by mainstream science?

I have, and you ignore them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The past climates had different atmospherics ratios, and different amounts of input energy.
While we may not be able to tell specifically what the ECS will be, we can tell roughly what it has been.
There was roughly .2 C of warming before 1940, that did not go back down, If ECS is a feedback responce to input warming after an equalization period,
then we should see all of the amplified feedbacks of less than 75 years, in the record.
Of course we would need to subtract out the know warming inputs from the direct response of CO2.
Temp 1940 .08
CO2 1940 311.3 ppm

Temp 2014 .75
CO2 2014 400ppm
.75-.08= .67 C
1.73 X ln(400/311.3)= .43 C
.67-.43= .24 C
After considering the direct warming from the added CO2, there is only .24 C of possible amplified feeback,
but the number also include all the other unaccounted for variables like aerosol clearing, increases in TSI, ect.
So while we do not know how small ECS is, we can get a rough idea that it will not be more than
a .24 C output from a .28 C input (1880 to 1940 delta temp).
If we apply that same increase ratio to the input 1.2 C, we get a maximum of 2.22 C for ECS,
but we know there were other variables which have not been accounted for.
Some numbers out there place the warming from the TSI increase as much as .3 C for the last century,
if that number is accurate ECS could be a negative number!
I think the ECS will end up being a minor positive, based on published papers, and from my own looking at the input data.

But don't forget, the sun is stronger in 2014 than 1940, plus the sky is more transparent after the EPA and efforts by other countries reduced aerosol pollution.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's what I thought too. Shoot the messenger. It's the scientific community's fault. The Republicans should eliminate the National Academy of Sciences as well as the EPA and NASA's Earth science division. That will put a stop to the voice of science, and it's their own fault.

Other scientists will save science. They always have.

 

[Russell797]

By all means keep paying for it if you like. I looked at the science a decade ago and found there actually wasn't any that stood even the most cursory of empirical analysis. The rest is all politics be it Hockey Sticks shonky opinion polls or catatrophist scenarios.

We have been through warming phases like this dozens of times since the last glaciation and the ice core record shows this one is very modest in comparison to others both in its level and rate of change. In other words theres nothing whatsoever marking it out as unnatural.

Keep paying for what? I haven't paid anything. You looked at the physics with what credentials? Even the skeptics on this site acknowledge the physics. Every scientific organization in the world including all Academies of Science endorse the conclusion gleaned from many scientific fields that the Earth is warming due to mankind's activities. Oh, but you have decided it's a fraud. Good for you.

Yes the world has warmed and cooled many a times and will in the distant future. It's always warming or cooling naturally to some small degree, sometime to a much larger degree. Currently human activities are altering the radiative balance which determines the globes average temperature. That's a fact of observation and science. You are just another of a growing number of science deniers. Pathetic.

 

[Russell797]

Other scientists will save science. They always have.

You mean oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, volcanologists, astronomers, solar physicists etc.? The same fields of science which contribute to our knowledge of Earth's climate? What a joke you are.

 

[Jack Hays]

You mean oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, volcanologists, astronomers, solar physicists etc.? The same fields of science which contribute to our knowledge of Earth's climate? What a joke you are.

There's no need to make this personal. An old paradigm is decaying as a new paradigm emerges to take its place.

 

[flogger]

Keep paying for what? I haven't paid anything. You looked at the physics with what credentials? Even the skeptics on this site acknowledge the physics. Every scientific organization in the world including all Academies of Science endorse the conclusion gleaned from many scientific fields that the Earth is warming due to mankind's activities. Oh, but you have decided it's a fraud. Good for you.

Yes the world has warmed and cooled many a times and will in the distant future. It's always warming or cooling naturally to some small degree, sometime to a much larger degree. Currently human activities are altering the radiative balance which determines the globes average temperature. That's a fact of observation and science. You are just another of a growing number of science deniers. Pathetic.

Sorry but there simply is no evidence marking out the current warming period as in any way remarkable from dozens of others even over just the last 4,000 years and here is some real evidence based science confirming that

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf



One can find similar evidence from the South pole too

Ice Cores

Its when I saw stuff like this I realised I was being taken for a ride which I decided to get off a long time ago. Temperature fluctuations over the last 150 years are utterly inconsequential in the great scheme of things. Its clearly mother nature that drives the climate not us

 

[Russell797]

Sorry but there simply is no evidence marking out the current warming period as in any way remarkable from dozens of others even over just the last 4,000 years and here is some real evidence based science confirming that

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

View attachment 67214115

One can find similar evidence from the South pole too

Ice Cores

Its when I saw stuff like this I realised I was being taken for a ride which I decided to get off a long time ago. Temperature fluctuations over the last 150 years are utterly inconsequential in the great scheme of things. Its clearly mother nature that drives the climate not us

Seriously? Isolating on Greenland? So you extrapolate to the whole Earth from one small portion of it. Then you proceed to conclude the entirety of science is refuted by your reading of what looking at Greenland over the past several thousand years implies. Or Antarctica for that matter. Ice cores can inform us of the atmospheric properties over time, and yes they can give us information of the temperature when the snow fell but only where it fell.

By the way, your second link grossly misrepresents and misuses Richard Alley's stance on climate change. You listen lying bastards.

Richard Alley | What We Know

 

[flogger]

Seriously? Isolating on Greenland? So you extrapolate to the whole Earth from one small portion of it. Then you proceed to conclude the entirety of science is refuted by your reading of what looking at Greenland over the past several thousand years implies. Or Antarctica for that matter. Ice cores can inform us of the atmospheric properties over time, and yes they can give us information of the temperature when the snow fell but only where it fell.

So where is it you extrapolate from the whole earth ?

Medieval Warm Period

 

[flogger]

So where is it you extrapolate from the whole earth ?

Medieval Warm Period

In case you missed it I did I did include Antarctica data too

 

[Russell797]

So where is it you extrapolate from the whole earth ?

Medieval Warm Period

By the way, your second link grossly misrepresents and misuses Richard Alley's stance on climate change. You listen lying bastards.

Richard Alley | What We Know

 

[Russell797]

So where is it you extrapolate from the whole earth ?

Medieval Warm Period

You don't. You must take paleoclimate proxy readings from many spots all over the planet using a multitude of different techniques which overlap in time sequence.

 

[flogger]

By the way, your second link grossly misrepresents and misuses Richard Alley's stance on climate change. You listen lying bastards.

Richard Alley | What We Know

So did Richard Alley author all the sublinked studies on that map ?

 

[flogger]

You don't. You must take paleoclimate proxy readings from many spots all over the planet using a multitude of different techniques which overlap in time sequence.

Thanks for the link which shows as much from a source which understands the reality of the situation.

Which basically means we do not know nearly enough about this subject to be making predictions about anything . And here is why

https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.c...global-warming-models-and-climate-scientists/

 

[Threegoofs]

Which basically means we do not know nearly enough about this subject to be making predictions about anything . And here is why

https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.c...global-warming-models-and-climate-scientists/

No. It's been done.

And the results are quite clear to actual
scientists. Plumbers and wing nuts may have trouble with comprehension though.

 

[flogger]

No. It's been done.

As has youir graph countless times

Why are you still here ?

 

[Threegoofs]

As has youir graph countless times

Why are you still here ?

These days, its mostly to point fingers and laugh at the unbridled ignorance here.

It's just amazing how clownishly irrational some people are. It helps me grasp the insanity behind the thinking of such people like Trump supporters, or gun nuts.

 

[Fletch]

These days, its mostly to point fingers and laugh at the unbridled ignorance here.

It's just amazing how clownishly irrational some people are. It helps me grasp the insanity behind the thinking of such people like Trump supporters, or gun nuts.

Rather than demonstrate your arrogant and sanctimonious attitude, why don't you take the opportunity to enlighten all of us commoners with your solutions to the gloom and doom you spread across this forum like a virus. Oh that's right, there isn't one. You simply want to empower the state to regulate our behavior, destroy our liberty and dictate terms of our existence. Ive got some very disappointing news for you--you aren't half as bright as you think you are.