• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Weather facts vs. fantasy

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Harvard researchers published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (A large increase in U.S. methane emissions over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations - Turner - 2016 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library) last month indicating that U.S. levels of atmospheric methane, a greenhouse gas, increased more than 30 percent between 2002 and 2014. The scientists compiled satellite and surface readings of methane to arrive at their finding, one that directly contradicts the EPA’s estimate that methane during that period had not risen at all, owing to the agency’s efforts to hold it down with air-quality regulations.

In defiance of computer-model forecasts, there has been an 18-year “pause” in the warming trend even as heat-trapping gas was supposed to have billowed across the landscape. The contradiction between prediction and measurement has the look of a well-cooked hypothesis.

Asked at a House committee hearing to explain the point of air quality rules that won’t have measurable impact on temperatures, Ms. McCarthy answered, “We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”

Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,188
Reaction score
35,300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm unsure exactly how you came to this conclusion given this information.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
46,123
Reaction score
13,483
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm unsure exactly how you came to this conclusion given this information.

There are other sources. Apparently, you didn't read the paper.

Par for the course...
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.

So ... methane emissions are up, and the denialati say that proves that we need less methane regulation?

Only in Denierstan does such an argument pass for logical.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So ... methane emissions are up, and the denialati say that proves that we need less methane regulation?

Only in Denierstan does such an argument pass for logical.

Let me explain ... the "A" in AGW doesn't stand for "All termites" and it occurs far more in nature. You've heard of nature.

The links suggest 3 things ... (1) humans aren't responsible for the methane increase which (2) hasn't had the effect on warming that the models predicted anyway and 3) when they build the predictive models they use hindsight and start with the conclusion they want to reach and gather whatever data they can that will support that conclusion.

That 3rd one wasn't actually directly stated in those links but given that AGW is being used for other purposes, as we see, you must know those IPPC honchos know where they want their career paths to take them so they're all to willing to feed the elites what they need.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. " S. Fred Singer, B.E.E electrical engineering, A.M. physics, Ph.D. physics
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me explain ... the "A" in AGW doesn't stand for "All termites" and it occurs far more in nature. You've heard of nature.

The links suggest 3 things ... (1) humans aren't responsible for the methane increase

You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.

which (2) hasn't had the effect on warming that the models predicted anyway

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.

and 3) when they build the predictive models they use hindsight and start with the conclusion they want to reach and gather whatever data they can that will support that conclusion.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!

That 3rd one wasn't actually directly stated in those links but given that AGW is being used for other purposes, as we see, you must know those IPPC honchos know where they want their career paths to take them so they're all to willing to feed the elites what they need.

Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!

Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.

I'm lost; is Denierstan a person or a place? It sounds like a country to me. If you want it to be a person (and thus capable of "striking out") it should be Denier Stan. It just seems like you are mixing your metaphors.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.


It was in the link - "The trend is largest in the central part of the country, but we cannot readily attribute it to any specific source type."

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.


It was in the post - "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. " S. Fred Singer, B.E.E electrical engineering, A.M. physics, Ph.D. physics


Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!



Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Paying attention is your friend.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm lost; is Denierstan a person or a place? It sounds like a country to me. If you want it to be a person (and thus capable of "striking out") it should be Denier Stan. It just seems like you are mixing your metaphors.

Denierstan is a state of mind.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which describes your mind when it comes to real science.

This from a guy who denies real science.

Projection (n.) A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, whereby that which is emotionally unacceptable in the self is rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=2]Drought links[/h] May 11, 2016 Climate: WG2
902844-27019690-thumbnail.jpg
In the aftermath of my GWPF paper on drought the other day, ECIU has published a piece on the same subject. Entitled "Syria and climate change - did the media get it right?" it looks at the execrable Kelley et al paper that I have been so critical of over the last year or so. The author, Alex Randall, describes the paper as "measured and robust", which is a surprising thing to say about research that blamed a long-term, but slight decline in rainfall in Iran for social unrest in Syria, but as someone once said "Hey, it's climate science".
His case is that the media have been misleading the public, hyping Kelley's paper and creating illusory links to the unrest. No doubt he is thinking of people like the ECIU.
In a companion piece, Randall claims that
the media reporting and the Kelley paper were also broadly consistent with research exploring the impacts of drought on migration and displacement across the world. Specifically, there is strong evidence linking climate change impacts such as drought with patterns of rural to urban migration.
But if you read his links you find only support for the hypothesis that drought causes migration. With no evidence that climate change causes droughts to become more intense or more prevalent, our green friends are left to insert the word "climate change" whereever they can, and to hope that nobody notices what they are up to.


 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
13,594
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This from a guy who denies real science.

Projection (n.) A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, whereby that which is emotionally unacceptable in the self is rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

That certainly explains your obsessive use of the "denier" label.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That certainly explains your obsessive use of the "denier" label.

No, actually my use of the "denier" label is explained by the obsessive denial of science. By deniers.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
51,327
Reaction score
18,347
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.

I have never seen such a misleading and unscientific article. There is a source for all that methane and it ain't TERMITES.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
So it is termites in China that resulted in air quality going down on the west coast after years of improvement. Oh wait, pollution and C02 and not the same. Now back to the three monkeys:

View attachment 67201264
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
13,594
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, actually my use of the "denier" label is explained by the obsessive denial of science. By deniers.

See how you are projecting? Such irony.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
13,594
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So it is termites in China that resulted in air quality going down on the west coast after years of improvement. Oh wait, pollution and C02 and not the same.


I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...

Maybe you can point it out.............................Oh you mean talking to those that only see what they want, yes, pointless in the extreme.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have never seen such a misleading and unscientific article. There is a source for all that methane and it ain't TERMITES.


...

Which one? There were 2 articles referenced.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
13,594
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe you can point it out.............................Oh you mean talking to those that only see what they want, yes, pointless in the extreme.

You admit that California's pollution has declined even while their fuel burn rate hasn't actually declined significantly... so by the Cali example pollution and CO2 production are not as tightly coupled as you want to believe. China is so poluted because they don't care to implement technology to control pollution in the process of burning fossil fuels.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...

You mean you think you understood what he thought he was trying to say? Seemed a little unhinged and contradictory and thus best left alone.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
13,594
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mean you think you understood what he thought he was trying to say? Seemed a little unhinged and contradictory and thus best left alone.

Yeah, I deciphered it... at least I think I did. I think they think that California cleared up it's pollution by reducing fossil fuel use.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,681
Reaction score
15,829
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, I deciphered it... at least I think I did. I think they think that California cleared up it's pollution by reducing fossil fuel use.

Oooooh only in Cailifornia.
Guess it's one of those local not global phenomenon unique to CO2 that I keep hearing about.
That goes a real long way to help explain data that doesn't conform.
 
Top Bottom