Page 54 of 54 FirstFirst ... 444525354
Results 531 to 539 of 539

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #531
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    2,032
    I never claimed climate change isn't happening Gordon. Please, find it in these last 50 pages.

    I claimed that climate is warming, it has been since 1850. And I said it isn't warming at the rate that the models predict, because they had a forcing of x3 for water vapor at the 300mBar level that was supposed to create a blanket of warm air.

    That didn't happen.

    Oh, and Climate Change is a pussy footed claim that all weather is climate change because we both know the claims we are for warming that hasn't shown up at the rate you needed.

    On the graphic, it is a new year. You should be able to get your insurance to pay for new glasses, those seem to make it hard for you to read the computer screen.

    So, you are in on the Bet?

    2030 can't come soon enough.

    Though, it is already to late it seems. We only have 59 days!: http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/wa...lobal-warming/

    This? This type of BS? From our experts. (Shakes head.) Well:

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
    Lets see who is right. I mean, everybody thinks they are. Let's see.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #532
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    2,032
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #533
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by vijil View Post
    I'm a firm fence sitter, and consider myself a centrist politically. Maybe a libertarian. In fact mostly I'm just anti-authoritarian, which rules out both the establishment left and right.

    I have no emotional horse in this race. Mostly I just like EVs and breathing not-smog. But those models sure look well off base. Are the graphs misleading?
    I think they are.

    It does seem like there's a decent possibility the average of the models are maybe 10-20% high in their predictions. Here's a pretty decent source tracking them:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...5_Fig11-25.jpg <- the picture was too big so I URL'd it.

    Regardless, just using the data even Josh agrees with we're on track to easily hit 2*C of warming by the end of the century.

    Instead of interpreting this as a missed systematic error in the analysis (anyone who's run a computer model knows you can't even model gravity perfectly), or previously unconsidered heat sink (for example, the oceans are warming and ice is shrinking faster than predicted), Josh has interpreted this to mean that there is no anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Despite direct measurements of an energy imbalance above the atmosphere which almost directly implicates greenhouse gasses, he contests that the "models failed" and the theory is incorrect.

    For the record, he's throwing out 150 years of physics at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The Models failed. Their math is wrong. You're understanding is wrong.
    He claims that there is no "radiative forcing". Radiative forcing is just a simple way to say that when you increase the temperature, you increase the amount of water in the air. It's nearly a trivial statement, because as the temperature of a gas increases so does its capacity to hold water. Given the same relative humidity (what the weatherman tells you) at 20*C and 30*C, the air at 30*C will contain more water. This is important because that water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas. This is especially important at ground level where the majority of the greenhouse effect occurs.

    Anyway, Josh believes the forcing coefficient should be 1 (not exist).

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I claimed that climate is warming, it has been since 1850. And I said it isn't warming at the rate that the models predict, because they had a forcing of x3 for water vapor at the 300mBar level that was supposed to create a blanket of warm air.

    That didn't happen.
    Despite the fact that if the forcing coefficient were actually 1, the model would be substantially worse than 20% off. To make an excessive simplification for demonstrative purposes, 20% high is substantially closer to current measurements than (120/2.2 = 55%) 45% low.

    It's really too bad, as I told Ryan months ago now I started this discussion with high hopes to really delve into an interesting discussion about unforeseen climate anomalies and where the energy that's going into our atmospheric system but not coming out could be going, but instead Josh went all denialist on me.

    Anyway, I started a new job a couple months ago and have substantially less time and desire to participate in this conversation. To sum it up, it does seem like the models slightly overestimated the warming trend. That doesn't mean global warming is not anthropogenic in origin, or that we don't have a pretty damn impressive handle on what's going on given the complexity of the system, or that we're not heading for a more difficult climate to deal with.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 01-10-2018 at 12:23 AM.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  4. #534
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    2,032
    Regardless, just using the data even Josh agrees with we're on track to easily hit 2*C of warming by the end of the century.
    Josh has interpreted this to mean that there is no anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Despite direct measurements of an energy imbalance above the atmosphere which almost directly implicates greenhouse gasses, he contests that the "models failed" and the theory is incorrect.

    For the record, he's throwing out 150 years of physics at the same time.
    Please, don't emulate Gordon's inability to listen.

    In no way or form do I believe we are on track to hit 2 degrees worth of warming by the end of the century, and I have said nothing of the sort. The warming is over stated by a factor of 2 or 3. It should be far less than 2 degrees. That is wrong Steve. That is a lie.

    Anyway, Josh believes the forcing coefficient should be 1 (not exist).
    Never said that, and wow, you really are not familiar with the basics, are you? Another lie, and a topping of ignorance.

    I have said there IS a AGW contribution - And said that it is significant, in fact I quoted my reply to that just on the last page, from Page 2 of this thread. I used, several times, the analogy of how $10 out of $100 is significant. I stated it wasn't THE major contributor, but was one. Enough times that Gordon might even had got it. I think the guys watching here can see that you are lying, because I have been clear on this.

    As for throwing out physics, you are repeating a meme, but not actually repeating my words, my commentary, still have no clue what I said, nor the basics of my argument. Or the science.

    Lets just look at this. Because this is the underlying problem in your reply. What you have to ignore or to be ignorant of to repeat this lie about my position.

    Per the 150yo argument, CO2 can absorb energy. I said it actually, and the amount. I was the first one on here to do it. It does at a known set of frequencies. I showed the graph of it. This has been known for 150 years. If we double this amount from the 275ppm baseline we get a result of 1.1wm^2 of extra 'absorbtion' of outgoing radiation. That has never been in question Steve. I have repeated it not only first, but at least 20 times here.

    BUT, in 'The Theory', as presented by James Hansen in 1988 on the Senate Floor, there is supposed to be a x3 forcing from water vapor feedback, at the 300mBar level.

    Now, the "150yo argument" has nothing to do with this water feedback loop. It was first proposed in the late 1970's as way that releasing more CO2 could possibly warm the Earth after the great cooling from 1950s till the late 1970s. You are either ignoring this, didn't actually read and comprehend anything I said, are faking your ignorance, or are in fact blind to the fact we did this stupid dance every time you made this lie of a claim in the past.

    Oh, the 1970's theory was only 40 years ago, and was never a proven theorem. NEVER. It isn't a fact, it was a proposed theory. The warming never happened at the 300mBar level, and the atmospheric humidity at the 300mBar level dropped just a tiny bit. That has been proven over time.

    Steve, you don't even know the parts of the argument I am talking about. You have to ignore that I addressed this consistently throughout these pages. Or, this is a deliberate LIE on your part to save some face. Or maybe cognitive dissonance.

    You have no reply recently on my Climate Positions that are not straw men. You are doing nothing but lying about my positions to try and win false points I never made.

    Steve, what the F is wrong with you that you have to present falsehoods about MY position? Why is your argument so fucking weak that your only win is based on lying about what I said?

    It's really too bad, as I told Ryan months ago now I started this discussion with high hopes to really delve into an interesting discussion about unforeseen climate anomalies and where the energy that's going into our atmospheric system but not coming out could be going, but instead Josh went all denialist on me.
    Look kid, if you can't actually respond to what I wrote, you never debated me. Proof above is that you didn't. I brought up 3 friggen versions of the energy budget, and you had never seen it before. That is isn't denial on my part, it is on yours.

    You debated a paper doll of a climate denier. It is all in your head. You have consistently failed to reply to MY remarks, or MY commentary, or my proofs, and replied with falsehoods of my position that I never raised, or I had addressed, multiple times, and you ignored, or replied with a response that didn't even address my position.

    The problem is YOU Steve. You are crap at this. Don't try and turn this around as if I failed this argument. You did.

    I was hoping for a worthwhile discussion to hone my knowledge, but you never debated me, or discussed the science. You attacked me. Again and again, ignoring any peer reviewed source, data from NOAA or NASA or anything and then you had to resort to lying about my positions. You didn't even take anything I said as fact, Ad Hom'ed source material, and flat out said you didn't respect my replies. Then you lied about what I said.

    This is why people don't like you on the internets Steve. They think you are an ass because you attack, don't actually listen to what they say, and then make shit up about what they said.

    Congrats Steve. Par for the course.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 01-10-2018 at 01:19 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #535
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Please, don't emulate Gordon's inability to listen.

    In no way or form do I believe we are on track to hit 2 degrees worth of warming by the end of the century, and I have said nothing of the sort. The warming is over stated by a factor of 2 or 3. It should be far less than 2 degrees. That is wrong Steve. That is a lie.

    Never said that, and wow, you really are not familiar with the basics, are you? Another lie, and a topping of ignorance.

    I have said there IS a AGW contribution - And said that it is significant, in fact I quoted my reply to that just on the last page, from Page 2 of this thread. I used, several times, the analogy of how $10 out of $100 is significant. I stated it wasn't THE major contributor, but was one. Enough times that Gordon might even had got it. I think the guys watching here can see that you are lying, because I have been clear on this.

    As for throwing out physics, you are repeating a meme, but not actually repeating my words, my commentary, still have no clue what I said, nor the basics of my argument. Or the science.

    Lets just look at this. Because this is the underlying problem in your reply. What you have to ignore or to be ignorant of to repeat this lie about my position.

    Per the 150yo argument, CO2 can absorb energy. I said it actually, and the amount. I was the first one on here to do it. It does at a known set of frequencies. I showed the graph of it. This has been known for 150 years. If we double this amount from the 275ppm baseline we get a result of 1.1wm^2 of extra 'absorbtion' of outgoing radiation. That has never been in question Steve. I have repeated it not only first, but at least 20 times here.

    BUT, in 'The Theory', as presented by James Hansen in 1988 on the Senate Floor, there is supposed to be a x3 forcing from water vapor feedback, at the 300mBar level.

    Now, the "150yo argument" has nothing to do with this water feedback loop. It was first proposed in the late 1970's as way that releasing more CO2 could possibly warm the Earth after the great cooling from 1950s till the late 1970s. You are either ignoring this, didn't actually read and comprehend anything I said, are faking your ignorance, or are in fact blind to the fact we did this stupid dance every time you made this lie of a claim in the past.

    Oh, the 1970's theory was only 40 years ago, and was never a proven theorem. NEVER. It isn't a fact, it was a proposed theory. The warming never happened at the 300mBar level, and the atmospheric humidity at the 300mBar level dropped just a tiny bit. That has been proven over time.

    Steve, you don't even know the parts of the argument I am talking about. You have to ignore that I addressed this consistently throughout these pages. Or, this is a deliberate LIE on your part to save some face. Or maybe cognitive dissonance.

    You have no reply recently on my Climate Positions that are not straw men. You are doing nothing but lying about my positions to try and win false points I never made.

    Steve, what the F is wrong with you that you have to present falsehoods about MY position? Why is your argument so fucking weak that your only win is based on lying about what I said?



    Look kid, if you can't actually respond to what I wrote, you never debated me. Proof above is that you didn't. I brought up 3 friggen versions of the energy budget, and you had never seen it before. That is isn't denial on my part, it is on yours.

    You debated a paper doll of a climate denier. It is all in your head. You have consistently failed to reply to MY remarks, or MY commentary, or my proofs, and replied with falsehoods of my position that I never raised, or I had addressed, multiple times, and you ignored, or replied with a response that didn't even address my position.

    The problem is YOU Steve. You are crap at this. Don't try and turn this around as if I failed this argument. You did.

    I was hoping for a worthwhile discussion to hone my knowledge, but you never debated me, or discussed the science. You attacked me. Again and again, ignoring any peer reviewed source, data from NOAA or NASA or anything and then you had to resort to lying about my positions. You didn't even take anything I said as fact, Ad Hom'ed source material, and flat out said you didn't respect my replies. Then you lied about what I said.

    This is why people don't like you on the internets Steve. They think you are an ass because you attack, don't actually listen to what they say, and then make shit up about what they said.

    Congrats Steve. Par for the course.
    Ok.

    I never said you thought we'd hit 2 degrees. I said data you had presented as reliable indicated we were on track to hit 2 degrees.

    That's it for me though.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  6. #536
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,489
    Ah, sorry, you're right, it'd be 1.44 degrees since 1978 to 2100.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  7. #537
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    612
    Gordon referenced the released transcript of the interview of the head of Fusion GPS. I pulled it from the NYT and found the discussion absolutely fascinating: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...t-redacted.pdf

    I am about halfway through the reading and am surprised by the interactions between the GOP questioner and Simpson (and more pointedly, to his lawyer Levy). Of note is how many times Simpson's lawyers repeated that he was there and he was answering the questions. In the context of the text it almost seems out of place, so I can only imagine there is some tone to what was being said that made the lawyers respond so defensively.

  8. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I never claimed climate change isn't happening Gordon. Please, find it in these last 50 pages.

    I claimed that climate is warming, it has been since 1850. And I said it isn't warming at the rate that the models predict, because they had a forcing of x3 for water vapor at the 300mBar level that was supposed to create a blanket of warm air.

    That didn't happen.

    Oh, and Climate Change is a pussy footed claim that all weather is climate change because we both know the claims we are for warming that hasn't shown up at the rate you needed.

    On the graphic, it is a new year. You should be able to get your insurance to pay for new glasses, those seem to make it hard for you to read the computer screen.

    So, you are in on the Bet?

    2030 can't come soon enough.

    Though, it is already to late it seems. We only have 59 days!: http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/wa...lobal-warming/

    This? This type of BS? From our experts. (Shakes head.) Well:



    Lets see who is right. I mean, everybody thinks they are. Let's see.
    as already detailed ... the warming is exactly in line with predictions and modeling.

    as your own graphs show, and you've agreed to already.



    so, my bet is that scientific consensus is correct, yours is not. we will find out in 20 years.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-10-2018 at 04:38 PM.
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

  9. #539
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOonjy1YV04

    i wish it was tandy, bamber and Makowiecki in one car.

    EDIT: opps, please move to OT
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-12-2018 at 07:43 PM.
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

Posting Permissions

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