Page 22 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272122 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Okay, you kinda got me, you are right, science is about understanding. But that isn't this discussion. It was said I took anti-scientific positions, of which you stated affirmative.

    In the end, my scientific position was upheld, with science. Your's was not. It is still the internet, it isn't about science. It is about being right.

    (bows)
    no, no it wasn't.

    do you have a Nobel prize for climatology yet?

    then your "debunking" of climate change is only in your mind. if you'd actual debunked decades of work by the smartest climatologists on earth, you'd have a nobel prize. consistently misquoting and misunderstanding scientific literature is not a an effective argument.

    i seem to recall a simple challenge, that i see 10+ pages later you still have not met. solar output has not increased. you lose.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #212
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I showed it, you didn't believe it. I can't help that.

    And as for your Nobel repeated BS comment - Michael Mann, a winner of the Nobel Prize for climatology? That is the same Mann who is agreeing with my position. Same guy.

    He changed his position on the quality of the models. It agrees with my position.

    Try to keep up.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #213
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Mann is not agreeing with your position. I don't know how you could think that. I don't think you read the very paper you're citing.

    Building models of the world is an exercise in constant refinement. The Santer paper you like so much is essentially using statistical fingerprinting for a signpost on how to adjust existing models. By no means does it point to a massive misunderstanding in the fundamental science. There is a ton of research on the stratospheric water vapor content, with similar techniques investigating why the increases tropospheric temperature hasn't yet contributed to a positive feedback through that mechanism.


    You're a ketobro, right? Does that mean that calories in/calories out is a faulty analysis of diet? Or, rather, does one have to refine the model and accept that the downstream metabolism of fat can have a huge role in net weight gain? Models gain explanatory power with complexity - it's very rare that this isn't the case.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  4. #214
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    .................I just don't have time to explain it all, because I already said it.

    I think you are missing a very big part of this. It is fairly clear.

    The model, the Theory is well 'known' - that doesn't mean anything is understood. It is not a fundamental science, that is a mistake. It is a Hypothesis. It has been sold as "Science!" - and I know that sounds like a shit sandwich of a statement to say. So please ignore it a bit, and try to listen and grasp the one big point:

    The Theory does say, well, lets put Skeptical Science out here to explain it. This we will call the AGW position, (being polite enough to take off the alarmists) and of course, pay attention to the bold:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/wat...nhouse-gas.htm

    When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

    How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

    How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

    The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

    So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
    That is a THEORY. It is NOT settled science. It is how the MODELS WORK. From James Hanson's first GISS work, from the beginning testimony in congress, in August 1988, when they turned off the AC and opened the windows. That is the "Theory"

    The Skeptics said this feedback/forcing isn't there. The 3X was a GUESS.

    Hence - the argument. This is it. The some total of 90% of it. The 3X is just pulled because it makes sense. More warming, more water vapor. Right? That is it. But that 3X is just a guess.... a hypothesis. I looked for it. I spent months looking for the "why" of that number. Where did come from? But you know what - I couldn't find it. There wasn't any good work on that, but I did look up the water vapor levels. They were not increasing in step with the temperature. Even Otto et a 2013 said that they are using 2X instead of 3X because it doesn't track with reality. The 2X? There wasn't a study to confirm it.

    But there is one study that actually looked at feedback. How? It looked at return off of the earth. And guess what? The feedback was negative. That was Lindzen's 2009 paper, and resulted in a large number of counter papers, which resulted in his 2011 paper.

    That is the basic of it Ryan. I can only think you didn't know that, because you keep replying as if you know, but this seems to be missed again and again.

    The argument per the AGW side is there is a 3X feedback, or maybe a 2X feedback. Per Skeptical Science. That is "The Science." Per the AGW position.

    If the water vapor doesn't increase, then the AGW position is incorrect.

    Per the paper, your quote, your bold:

    and a decrease in stratospheric water vapour27.
    If "The Science" was known, that couldn't have happened.

    If "The Science" was correct, that couldn't have happened.

    If "The Models" were correct, that couldn't have happened.

    I am not missing anything. I understand this. I understand this paper. I understand what they are saying.

    I understand the total implications. You didn't. Maybe you do now. Here is the AGW prediction, per the science, the models, per skeptical science, per Steve and Gordon, vs the reality. If the water vapor didn't increase, then 'The Science', the Theory, is wrong.

    It IS that simple.



    Sorry man. The Science was just a SWAG. A Scientific Wild Assed Guess by Hansen in the 1980s.

    With no 3X forcing/feedback, it isn't that alarming. And there isn't one.

    Even Mann gets it. It is that simple.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-16-2017 at 08:12 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #215
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    If the water vapor doesn't increase, then the AGW position is incorrect.

    Per the paper, your quote, your bold:



    If "The Science" was known, that couldn't have happened.

    If "The Science" was correct, that couldn't have happened.

    If "The Models" were correct, that couldn't have happened.

    I am not missing anything. I understand this. I understand this paper. I understand what they are saying.

    I understand the total implications. You didn't. Maybe you do now. Here is the AGW prediction, per the science, the models, per skeptical science, per Steve and Gordon, vs the reality. If the water vapor didn't increase, then 'The Science', the Theory, is wrong.

    It IS that simple.



    Sorry man. The Science was just a SWAG. A Scientific Wild Assed Guess by Hansen in the 1980s.

    With no 3X forcing/feedback, it isn't that alarming. And there isn't one.

    Even Mann gets it. It is that simple.
    Hrm, I wonder why your NOAA graph looks different from mine.

    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-16-2017 at 11:56 PM. Reason: Friggin autocorrect.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  6. #216
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Ah! Great point! I see I wasn't clear.

    That is the tracking from the 300mb level - or 9km high. Here is a bit showing the expected Red Spot as in the original IPCC documents vs what was found:



    See where the red spot was at 300mb? That was were the extra moisture was supposed to be.

    If you look at several levels of humidity at different levels you have both your graph and mine.



    The 300mb one is the important one in the models/theory, from the 'Red Spot' predictions.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I showed it, you didn't believe it. I can't help that.

    And as for your Nobel repeated BS comment - Michael Mann, a winner of the Nobel Prize for climatology? That is the same Mann who is agreeing with my position. Same guy.

    He changed his position on the quality of the models. It agrees with my position.

    Try to keep up.
    no, you didn't. because it doesn't exist. solar output has not increased by any measure.

    as detailed, Mann does not agree with you. if you agreed with Mann, then you wouldn't be arguing that solar forcing or water vapor is the reason for the recent warming.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #218
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Gordon - I had plenty of details on it. Links to peer reviewed studies. You just quoted skeptical science. You made no effort to even read or comprehend the reply. As what might become a repeated theme in my replies, this is why people think you are an asshole. You don't listen and reply as if you are adding something. You are not. The reply flies in the face of the basic information brought forward. It is, at best, a troll.

    Here is another to not read:

    https://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf



    Figure 9. IR2Tmax reconstruction since AD 1602 for the Iberian Range. The bold red curve is an 11-year running mean, and grey shading
    indicates the mean square error based on the calibration period correlation. Yellow shading at the bottom shows solar forcing and bars on top
    indicate volcanic forcings (Crowley, 2000).
    That is tree ring data against Solar Forcing. Notice solar forcing matches temperature proxy data from tree rings, with some variation thrown in for volcanoes.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Gordon - I had plenty of details on it. Links to peer reviewed studies. You just quoted skeptical science. You made no effort to even read or comprehend the reply. As what might become a repeated theme in my replies, this is why people think you are an asshole. You don't listen and reply as if you are adding something. You are not. The reply flies in the face of the basic information brought forward. It is, at best, a troll.

    Here is another to not read:

    https://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf





    That is tree ring data against Solar Forcing. Notice solar forcing matches temperature proxy data from tree rings, with some variation thrown in for volcanoes.
    the graph distinctly shows no increase in solar output over the area in question. it shows actually very distinctly that the sun is not to blame for the arming of the last 100 years.

    and that makes sense, by all measures solar output has not increased.

    im sorry, you wont be able to find data showing an increase in TSI because it doesn't exist.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #220
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Ah! Great point! I see I wasn't clear.
    Does the graph I posted say anything about temperature?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •