Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28682 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #780 on: June 21, 2019, 12:45:42 am »
Question: how do we know what is a stable long term proxy and what is not?
Answer: we do a correlation analysis on part of the record and simple assume the correlation holds for all time.

setting aside your "for all time" hyperbole, within multi-proxy reconstructions, just what specific time frame/period are you challenging. Again, let me ask for the 3rd time: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

Question: what happens when the correlation diverges for the modern record?
Answer: If the proxy tells us what we want hear we invent excuses for why the correlation breaks down for the modern period.

riddle me this Mr. Wizard: is your described 'modern period breakdown' applicable to all proxies... or even to all tree-ring locales... or even to the entirety of your described 'modern period breakdown'? Just answer the question - sure you can! Of course, those temperature reading 'thermometer' thingees are a real inconvenient truth for you, yes?

in any case, for certain trees in certain locales over a certain time period... yes you can whine/wail about the divergence effect. Of course you would prefer to call the work of scientists doing science in attempting to understand the effect, "inventing excuses". Much easier for your denial to ignore such things as global dimming, (likely anthropogenic) air pollution effects, warming induced drought, etc..

Physical science? ROTFL. It is nothing but repeated data mining/p-hacking to find things that tell the academics what they want to hear.

one can only wonder why you so object to having your denial pointed out... why you take such exception to being labeled the denier you are! You should embrace it - be loud and proud about your denial!

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #781 on: June 21, 2019, 10:41:56 am »
setting aside your "for all time" hyperbole, within multi-proxy reconstructions, just what specific time frame/period are you challenging.
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.

centers  the divergence effect.
Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 10:48:54 am by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #782 on: June 21, 2019, 11:16:11 am »
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.
Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.

Once again Tim, I think most of us who have any interest in science think that the overwhelming majority of peered reviewed climate scientists who say global warming is happening and we are largely responsible is the good science, while the religious BS stuff comes solely from the nay sayerds.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #783 on: June 21, 2019, 12:40:27 pm »
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.

Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

setting aside your rejection of all proxies/all reconstructions, lets get to your bottom line, hey! Setting aside your concerns over the instrumental records, when you dismiss anything prior to the instrumental records (say 1860 or so), what summary statement are you making concerning prior climate and causal attributions therein? Just say it so we can move on to the next stages of your denial - just say it!

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.

you're certainly not the arbiter of determining "good science"... of "standards in science"! It's always comforting to read your consistency - when you start to drop the alarmist tag, the religion tag, the BS tag... the waldo recognizes your true-self coming forward.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #784 on: June 24, 2019, 01:57:34 pm »
Mike Pence came off sounding pretty stupid during a section of a recent interview with Jake Tapper when he brought up the issue of climate change. I guess he had to stumble along and try to ignore the facts of the issue lest his boss hear him whereupon the **** would have hit the fan.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/mike-pence-climate-crisis/index.html

TAPPER: OK. So you don't think it is a threat, is all I'm saying? You don't think it is a threat?
PENCE: I think we're making great progress reducing carbon emissions, America has the cleanest air and water in the world. We will continue to use market forces...
TAPPER: That is not true. We don't have the cleanest air and water in the world.
We don't.

And, scene.
Let's start here: There is no real debate in the scientific community as to whether or not a) the climate is warming and b) this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #785 on: June 24, 2019, 02:06:18 pm »
TAPPER: That is not true. We don't have the cleanest air and water in the world.
TAPPER is spouting the usual alarmist BS. The US air and water is cleaner than it ever has been is the last 100 years and it is certainly cleaner than most countries in the world.

this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.
Again, not true. The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 02:15:35 pm by TimG »
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #786 on: June 24, 2019, 02:35:32 pm »
TAPPER is spouting the usual alarmist BS. The US air and water is cleaner than it ever has been is the last 100 years and it is certainly cleaner than most countries in the world.
Again, not true. The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.

Tapper wasn't "spewing" anything, he was asking pertinent questions and Pence was lying through his teeth, again I suspect because he was afraid his boss may be listening. As of 2016 the US ranked #10 in terms of air quality, and I suspect it will degrade if Trump has his way and gets coal mining active again.

The average world temp. has been the highest in the last 5 years than any other since we have been keeping records. Your example from 20k years ago wouldn't have been caused by humans burning fossil fuels do you think?

The average global temperature during 2018 was 1.42 degrees F above the 20th-century average. This marks the 42nd consecutive year (since 1977) with an above-average global temperature. Nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005, with the last five years comprising the five hottest.Feb 6, 2019
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 02:38:46 pm by Omni »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #787 on: June 24, 2019, 02:41:34 pm »
The average world temp. has been the highest in the last 5 years than any other since we have been keeping records. Your example from 20k years ago wouldn't have been caused by humans burning fossil fuels do you think?
Who cares? You said:

Quote
b) this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.
A statement that is clearly false. If you want to revise it to say "since we started keeping records" then go ahead but that is not what you said.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #788 on: June 24, 2019, 02:51:27 pm »
Who cares? You said:
A statement that is clearly false. If you want to revise it to say "since we started keeping records" then go ahead but that is not what you said.

So you don't care that we are clearly the major cause of current global warming? It was kinda fun watching Pence wobble around like a deer in the headlights stating untrue facts to try and cover up and getting caught out.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #789 on: June 24, 2019, 09:50:21 pm »





And this report was published only a couple of months before 2 billion tons of ice broke off Greenland.

Staggering New Data Show Greenland's Ice Is Melting 6 Times Faster Than in The 1980s

The findings, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, estimate that Greenland's glaciers went from dumping only about 51 billion tons of ice into the ocean between 1980 to 1990, to losing 286 billion tons between 2010 and 2018.

The result is that out of nearly 14 millimeters of sea level rise in total caused by Greenland since 1972, half of it has occurred in just the last 8 years, researchers found.

https://www.sciencealert.com/greenland-s-accelerating-ice-loss-is-worrisome-to-scientists

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #790 on: June 25, 2019, 01:04:26 am »
The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.

wait... what? Given your expressed rejection of all proxies/reconstructions, what are you relying upon to make such an outlandish statement on your 20K years past warming - hey!  ;D
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #791 on: June 25, 2019, 01:07:39 am »
hey member TimG - what's your understood/interpreted attribution for today's relatively recent warming... say from the industrial age on?

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #792 on: June 25, 2019, 10:06:45 am »
Too many people are focusing on what is happening today. The accumulation of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated over the last 200 years. If this is not a result of human activity, no one has offered an alternative explanation. Methane and carbon dioxide inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, you can prove it in any under graduate lab. It is predicable and measurable.
What many people are not looking at is the real impact of this crisis is in the future but the window of opportunity to mitigate it is now. What we do now will affect what happens in the future. People talk about sea level rise. That will be a serious problem but it is when the sea level drops due to evaporation that we have a true extinction situation. If the global temperature nears 100 degrees C,  the oceans will dry up and it will stop raining.
On the bright side, in about 200,000 years, we will enter an ice age and the regeneration of life will begin again after that. Who knows what the dominant life form will be after that.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #793 on: June 25, 2019, 11:34:12 am »
Too many people are focusing on what is happening today. The accumulation of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated over the last 200 years. If this is not a result of human activity, no one has offered an alternative explanation. Methane and carbon dioxide inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, you can prove it in any under graduate lab. It is predicable and measurable.
What many people are not looking at is the real impact of this crisis is in the future but the window of opportunity to mitigate it is now. What we do now will affect what happens in the future. People talk about sea level rise. That will be a serious problem but it is when the sea level drops due to evaporation that we have a true extinction situation. If the global temperature nears 100 degrees C,  the oceans will dry up and it will stop raining.
On the bright side, in about 200,000 years, we will enter an ice age and the regeneration of life will begin again after that. Who knows what the dominant life form will be after that.

Perhaps we should consider expanding the size of the ISS and installing some families if we want to preserve our current life form.

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #794 on: June 25, 2019, 01:50:16 pm »
"The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated." Fictional character Dr. Jeremy Stone in Michael Crichton's novel, The Andromeda Strain.
A major contributor to our situation is over population. A segment on Quirks and Quarks about a year ago said the maximum sustainable human population is 1.5 billion. If we don't reduce our population, mother nature will. The latter option is not a pleasant one.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body