zerostao

climate chaos

Recommended Posts

cmon ralis, are you trying to assert Hansen has not given his data a world class goosing?  :lol:

 

what the government wants, the government subsidizes, and they wanted another revenue stream to exploit - so they set the goalposts and told the fraudsters to get to work.

 

If Mann is the Sandusky of climate science, that pretty much makes Hansen the Epstein of climate science

Edited by joeblast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cmon ralis, are you trying to assert Hansen has not given his data a world class goosing?  :lol:

 

what the government wants, the government subsidizes, and they wanted another revenue stream to exploit - so they set the goalposts and told the fraudsters to get to work.

 

If Mann is the Sandusky of climate science, that pretty much makes Hansen the Epstein of climate science

 

A non emotional response would be apropos as opposed to conspiartorial innuendo. I know you are capable of so much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and i would like someone to demonstrate how digging and burning coal is not damaging to the environment

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol....I'd like to see you try and prove Hansen has not been fraudulent.

 

 

So far you have provided no evidence whatsoever. You brought it up and proof on your part is required. I will not buy into your tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and i would like someone to demonstrate how digging and burning coal is not damaging to the environment

Everything must be judged on its propensity to enhance life vs it's propensity to harm life. Now, if you can prove that there are better ways to provide the same benefits as digging and burning coal which create less damage for no increase in cost, then you have a winner. As solar/wind require enormous subsidies and are still massively disadvantaged in comparison to fossil fuels as an effective energy source, then we will have to continue digging and burning. There maybe a penalty for doing so (and as yet that penalty has been wildly overstated and consistently proven to be so), but that penalty, such that it is, does not outweigh the advantage of a plentiful and effective source of energy and valuable chemicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly who are the extremists? What data/evidence are you using to prove fraud? Science or emotional innuendo? Fraud is a very serious accusation and not to be taken lightly, but given that you are America's next great legal mind, I assume you already understand that.

LMAO

 

Don't expect you to actually investigate but here's a starting point...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far you have provided no evidence whatsoever. You brought it up and proof on your part is required. I will not buy into your tactic.

 All you have to do is go look at how GISS, lacking in polar measurement, smooths its datapoints over vast swaths of the poles, and simply extrapolates from there.

 

e.g. the Antarctic peninsula is ostensibly an entirely different climatic zone than the rest of antarctica - but no worry, we can just take measurements from there and extrapolate them to the whole continent! 

 

been there done that, ignored as inconvenient data *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching a rabbit chase birds around my yard with the windows open, its a wicked mild one heaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My windows haven't been open for two months.

 

Yeah, rabbits are silly.

 

The past two years here have been hotter and drier than normal.

 

But I do get to open my windows during Spring and Fall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think they know what I am thinking or intending when I post things? I may never know......

 

Anyways, it's not about me. I actually didn't expect you to read it, believe it, or even respond to it. And I would hope that nobody takes written sources lock-stock-and-barrel for what they present. However, your original quote on page 2 was that there was no evidence that Hansen was fraudulent. Whether the written article is an opinion piece or not, it brings together well-known information that can be cited from respectable sources about the bad statistics.

 

That's not to say that Hansen is necessarily a shyster (although his commitment to activism is, in itself---whether justified or not, a potential impediment to scientific impartiality), he was pioneering methods for new areas of study. It just so happens that there were problems in the methods:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

 

I neither affirm or oppose the idea that there is climate change. There is, however (and historically), bad math and bad data processing.

 

I only asked for a reasonable summary as to why Brian or Joeblast thinks there is fraud involved. There are persons that are hired by the fossil fuel companies to disseminate doubt in the public mind. Moreover, such companies are using the same model as 'big tobacco' in which it was claimed that cigarettes are not harmful.

 

Given the complexity of the biosphere, the average person is not equipped to understand as to how such a complex system functions. Most mistake local weather conditions for the climate of the total biosphere.  Why? The biosphere is a nonlinear dynamic complex system in which such a system is sensitive to initial conditions. In this case initial conditions being the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

I seriously doubt anyone participating in this thread has studied general systems theory, nonlinear dynamics or complexity theory. Further, the Dao is a complex system and yet no one writing on this thread even considers that.

Edited by ralis
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biosphere is a nonlinear dynamic complex system in which such a system is sensitive to initial conditions. In this case initial conditions being the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

I seriously doubt anyone participating in this thread has studied general systems theory, nonlinear dynamics or complexity theory. Further, the Dao is a complex system and yet no one writing on this thread even considers that.

This is exactly why you cannot extrapolate linearly the hockey stick.

This is how the hockey stick looks for real and it does not mean anything.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed/

 

If you want scientific skepticism look here : http://drtimball.com

 

And this interview by Burt Rutan :

 

https://youtu.be/jPP7P43wulg

Edited by Andrei
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You post a personal opinion piece from a right wing blog and expect well educated, critical thinking persons to believe this nonsense? What a joke! Human caused global warming is real so get over your insular self obsession and wake up to the real world!

This is why you lack critical thinking.

 

Anthropomorphic global change is undoubtedly real, but it isn't the whole story and we have yet to identify if it is a significant part. Even if we do someday determine the exact level of its effect, we may be unable to avoid it. Humans are part of the Eco system so it is you that should 'get real'. Even before humans walked the planet it had gone through many periods of change from totally frozen to extreme heat and it is likely it will do so again, with or without our own intervention.

 

I certainly would not want to hasten my own demise or that of others alive today, but I cannot extend that concern into an uncertain future, neither do I choose to do so. I certainly would not choose to freeze to death in order to save myself from global warming. I certainly would not choose to freeze to death to prevent future generations from global warming.

 

Of course this isn't what AGW fanatics are concerned about. There's is the ideology of violent force to achieve their ends. Their ends being nihilistic of course, but clothed in concern and the righteousness of a religious movement.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Karl, but Ralis is correct too, IMO.  There are many aspects to climate change. (I stopped using "global warming" quite a while ago.

 

The climate of the planet changes over time.  Sometimes warmer, other times cooler.  And this varies at different places on the planet.

 

But I do know that I won't be here for the next ice age.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many agenda's on too many sides with climate change IMO. I see people talk past each other because of agenda's here at work when they are talking about the subject. I will just go with the flow :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only asked for a reasonable summary as to why Brian or Joeblast thinks there is fraud involved. There are persons that are hired by the fossil fuel companies to disseminate doubt in the public mind. Moreover, such companies are using the same model as 'big tobacco' in which it was claimed that cigarettes are not harmful.

 

Given the complexity of the biosphere, the average person is not equipped to understand as to how such a complex system functions. Most mistake local weather conditions for the climate of the total biosphere.  Why? The biosphere is a nonlinear dynamic complex system in which such a system is sensitive to initial conditions. In this case initial conditions being the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

I seriously doubt anyone participating in this thread has studied general systems theory, nonlinear dynamics or complexity theory. Further, the Dao is a complex system and yet no one writing on this thread even considers that.

Ralis this got old a long time ago, those fools overemphasized the weighting of CO2 in their models to either make up for their lack of understanding or so as to give the government the data it needs in order to start taxing people for their CO2 emissions.

 

When you have to continually run and re run your models and constantly update them in order to keep dragging them towards reality despite the fact that nearly every single prediction that's made is incorrect - and THEN insist that they are accurate and we're doomed and must stop all CO2 emissions now...

 

I dunno, maybe you give them too much credit in the stupidity vs dishonesty game.  So which is it?  Are they fraudulent, or merely incompetent in trying to push a foregone conclusion that their models are fine tuned to support? 

 

Stupid only works so long as an excuse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralis this got old a long time ago, those fools overemphasized the weighting of CO2 in their models to either make up for their lack of understanding or so as to give the government the data it needs in order to start taxing people for their CO2 emissions.

 

When you have to continually run and re run your models and constantly update them in order to keep dragging them towards reality despite the fact that nearly every single prediction that's made is incorrect - and THEN insist that they are accurate and we're doomed and must stop all CO2 emissions now...

 

I dunno, maybe you give them too much credit in the stupidity vs dishonesty game.  So which is it?  Are they fraudulent, or merely incompetent in trying to push a foregone conclusion that their models are fine tuned to support? 

 

Stupid only works so long as an excuse.

 

The models show the inherent change in the dynamic system of the biosphere. That is why I stated what I did. Why not come to an understanding of dynamic systems where change is happening. Your fantasy of a static never changing system misses the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to misrepresent my position, I have never notta single once asserted anything of the sort.  As I've consistently stated, the models are incomplete approximations at best and they are not reflective of the totality of the dynamic system, although they do have a modicum of competency in describing some rudimentary functions thereof.  But the fact remains that the entire point of a model is to mimic nature closely enough so as to make testable predictions - and the GCMs fail time and again at this.   

 

 

I had some email exchange with "doctor" Hansen years ago, wherein I asked him why was it that everything I was reading, everywhere I looked, the sun's influences were nonmentionables - and his response was to link a single article of his that tangentially mentioned Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (which is a stamped-flat oversimplification and one huge gaping problem in this whole matter) and he then proceeded to tell me that his calculations proved well beyond a doubt that Man's influences on the climate system have solidly overtaken the SUN'S influences as the primary driver of the climate.

 

I simply cannot think of a more delusional statement to make about this topic.

 

 

Stupid, or fraudulent?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have called myself stupid on occasion but I can't recall ever calling myself fraudulent.

 

There ar a lot of people trying to do honest work on both sides of this concept.

 

We all have our personal subjective opinion and that is only natural.

 

But we all are going to need a lot of help if the planet ever gets warm enough to melt the methane that in our oceans and permanently frozen land areas around the poles.

 

And it is theoretically possible for Earth to become similar to Venus.  None of us would be happy if something like that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, where would the 98bar of atmospheric pressure come from? 

 

because THAT is why venus is hot

 

 

navigate to where  venusian pressure = 1atm and wow.....its pretty close to that of earth ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, where would the 98bar of atmospheric pressure come from? 

 

That is a result of the increased weight of the atmosphere.  There's lots of stuff in Venus's atmosphere that we don't have (yet).

 

because THAT is why venus is hot

 

Venus is hot BECAUSE of it. The sun's radiation cannot escape back out into space.

 

navigate to where  venusian pressure = 1atm and wow.....its pretty close to that of earth ;)

 

Bad example.  Try a different one.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pv=nrt brotha, the heat is a byproduct of the pressure, venus gravitationally captured its atmosphere early on and never underwent the changes earth did.

 

the co2 is the heat sink there because that is the most efficient heat sink present

 

just like our oceans are.....except the oceans have massively more heat capacity not to mention depth

 

and that IS a good example, because its showing you that atmospheric composition is entirely secondary as compared to atmospheric pressure. the earth will never, ever have anything close to the density of venusian atmosphere, and it will never, ever have anything close to the co2 composition.

 

there's plenty in our atmosphere that has a much greater heat capacity, but I dont see people complaining about water vapor,

 

 

ps....you know that algore falsified his co2 in a glass experiment in his 24 hours of climate reality, right? 

 

 

the whole co2 matter is nothing but a gambit for a tax revenue stream, the fascists want as many avenues of extraction as possible and they are quite willing to falsify what they may to get the end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never say never.

 

I didn't listen to Al Gore's talk about that stuff.  I prefer getting my information elsewhere than from a politician.

 

I'm not expecting anything dramatic during the rest of my lifetime so really it doesn't matter for me.

 

However, if the climate does change too much to the point where the fertile agricultural lands are then there is going to be a really big problem in the future.

 

But I think it is wrong to say extreme heat cannot wipe out most life on earth because it has happened in the past.  And at least one snowball earth has happened.  This caused the extinction of nearly all life on the planet.

 

I'm not a doomsday sayer but I think it would be wise to consider the "What if"s regarding climate change.  We should at least have plans on paper as to what we could do if the situation gets to the point where desertification hits areas where most of the agricultural products are grown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites