Page 51 of 228 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #501
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The global average temperature isn't actually increasing.
    I said it page 2 of this 50 page thread. I keep repeating myself, but this is from my first reply:

    They asked 2 questions.

    Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

    Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

    Now, if you asked me, or most climate skeptics. The answer is yes to both, in 2008. There is some significance.
    From the FIRST POINT of this conversation, I said warming has happened. Your comment is a Strawman Fallacy. The rate and the factors that affect the warming are what is in argument. I said that also. The models, which lead to OMG WE ARE GOING TO DIE headlines, are all wrong. That is what you are defending. Failure at every attempt.

    You are saying I have a position that I do not. I was clear, and have been consistent throughout, that warming from 1850 has happened. And I believe that the huge, vast majority of it is Natural. And that CO2 has a small, very small part to play in it. I agree with the 200 year old physics experiment. The part that I don't agree with is the water feedback that would add a 3x forcing element.

    That's it.

    That is what made every single model model FAIL.

    That failure you still try to support. This is our real disagreement, and you can't even argue my position. You have to make up shit about my position. Again and again. Try to say "I didn't explain something"
    or "He doesn't thing things are warming", blah blah blah to distract from the simple truth. Attack my understand of the science when you didn't even know the basic, day one, well, day two, basics of Climate 101. I even provided a college level class as an example as how that is basic.

    The Models failed. Their math is wrong. You're understanding is wrong.

    You don't want to face that.

    Trying to make shit up about my positions and then knocking down that strawman just shows how weak your position really is, and how little you understand me and mine.

    Oh yeah, all your models failed.
    ___________________

    I don't care what you believe Gordon, when it comes to TSI.

    It doesn't matter. The two positions, AGW being the dominate factor, or not. Again - just read above. I have shown ample evidence that whatever you think is working, what the Alarmists are saying, it isn't actually doing what a single model is predicting.

    Not a single one.

    That is what all the hubbaloo is based on. The models that said right now the arctic ocean should be ice free, florida under water, the world falling apart, that there would be no more snow.

    NONE of those came true Gordon. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

    The Theory just shows that whatever the alarmists are saying, they were wrong. There is no warming in the tropics at the 300mBar level. We have the same Greenland ice growth we did 30 years ago.



    Antarctic ice levels match those from the early 1900s explorations, over 100 years ago.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/early-e...over-100-years

    All of your points are made wrong by data.
    ___________________________



    John Christy video plus answers to audience questions. He brings up that Methane has a life span of a week, and so much more. He is an expert on both the models and actual collected data. 48 minutes in if you want to skip.

    The NOAA prediction:



    Reality:



    But hey, out this week:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...rs-earthquakes

    The east coast of the US continues to be ravaged by a freezing cold snap while the other side of the country has been hit by wildfires.

    These are a signs of the times according to one professor, who says that the situation will only worsen in the next few years.

    Eventually, Dr Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, says the rate of change to the climate will overcome humanity’s ability to adapt, which would prove devastating.

    In the next eight years, he adds, it is likely that the globe will be hotter than at any point in the last two billion years.
    And how about James Hansen? This is all his Theory.



    Oh no! The oceans will boil!

    So, anybody want to make a bet which it will be? Slight cooling, or total devastation and run away global warming? Say, a Beer or 2? Full 6 pack? I am game for a 15 years Scotch. Let's put our money and our mouth into this. (or maybe I like a Scotch.)

    Gonna take that bet? If the Oceans Boil? How about if any single current IPCC model is proven correct, that the temp ends up within the median 30% range of error (+/-15% of the median point of the error bar) as correlated between the GHCN stations rated 1-2 on the scale, or the weather balloon dataset, or the satellite dataset.

    If a single, currently used model is correct, I buy you a bottle of Scotch. Worth at least $100.

    If it is the Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira paper Steve linked to, I will buy two. Within any part of their margin of error, even for the RPC2.6, no need to hit RPC8.5.

    How about no bet?

    I will buy Gordon and Steve a Scotch of their choosing if they are right and I am wrong, in 8 years, up too $120.

    If you want to modify that bet a bit, go ahead. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and will even eat something foul if warranted. Shoot, I will do it on video. Twice. Once for each of you.

    Best way to end an argument. I will put both my money and my mouth and maybe my whole digestive tract up in challenge.

    (edit) Though, if we had made this bet 10 years ago, you both would be owing me some yummy Scotch. If you want to go in together, my wife's favorite is: https://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/p/...-alexander-iii
    Last edited by pbjosh; 01-08-2018 at 11:29 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #502
    pewpewpew vijil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    491
    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?
    https://www.instagram.com/vijil/
    I draw guns and spaceships and bunnies

  3. #503
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I said it page 2 of this 50 page thread. I keep repeating myself, but this is from my first reply:



    From the FIRST POINT of this conversation, I said warming has happened. Your comment is a Strawman Fallacy. The rate and the factors that affect the warming are what is in argument. I said that also. The models, which lead to OMG WE ARE GOING TO DIE headlines, are all wrong. That is what you are defending. Failure at every attempt.

    You are saying I have a position that I do not. I was clear, and have been consistent throughout, that warming from 1850 has happened. And I believe that the huge, vast majority of it is Natural. And that CO2 has a small, very small part to play in it. I agree with the 200 year old physics experiment. The part that I don't agree with is the water feedback that would add a 3x forcing element.

    That's it.

    That is what made every single model model FAIL.

    That failure you still try to support. This is our real disagreement, and you can't even argue my position. You have to make up shit about my position. Again and again. Try to say "I didn't explain something"
    or "He doesn't thing things are warming", blah blah blah to distract from the simple truth. Attack my understand of the science when you didn't even know the basic, day one, well, day two, basics of Climate 101. I even provided a college level class as an example as how that is basic.

    The Models failed. Their math is wrong. You're understanding is wrong.

    You don't want to face that.

    Trying to make shit up about my positions and then knocking down that strawman just shows how weak your position really is, and how little you understand me and mine.

    Oh yeah, all your models failed.
    ___________________

    I don't care what you believe Gordon, when it comes to TSI.

    It doesn't matter. The two positions, AGW being the dominate factor, or not. Again - just read above. I have shown ample evidence that whatever you think is working, what the Alarmists are saying, it isn't actually doing what a single model is predicting.

    Not a single one.

    That is what all the hubbaloo is based on. The models that said right now the arctic ocean should be ice free, florida under water, the world falling apart, that there would be no more snow.

    NONE of those came true Gordon. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

    The Theory just shows that whatever the alarmists are saying, they were wrong. There is no warming in the tropics at the 300mBar level. We have the same Greenland ice growth we did 30 years ago.



    Antarctic ice levels match those from the early 1900s explorations, over 100 years ago.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/early-e...over-100-years

    All of your points are made wrong by data.
    ___________________________



    John Christy video plus answers to audience questions. He brings up that Methane has a life span of a week, and so much more. He is an expert on both the models and actual collected data. 48 minutes in if you want to skip.

    The NOAA prediction:



    Reality:



    But hey, out this week:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...rs-earthquakes



    And how about James Hansen? This is all his Theory.



    Oh no! The oceans will boil!

    So, anybody want to make a bet which it will be? Slight cooling, or total devastation and run away global warming? Say, a Beer or 2? Full 6 pack? I am game for a 15 years Scotch. Let's put our money and our mouth into this. (or maybe I like a Scotch.)

    Gonna take that bet? If the Oceans Boil? How about if any single current IPCC model is proven correct, that the temp ends up within the median 30% range of error (+/-15% of the median point of the error bar) as correlated between the GHCN stations rated 1-2 on the scale, or the weather balloon dataset, or the satellite dataset.

    If a single, currently used model is correct, I buy you a bottle of Scotch. Worth at least $100.

    If it is the Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira paper Steve linked to, I will buy two. Within any part of their margin of error, even for the RPC2.6, no need to hit RPC8.5.

    How about no bet?

    I will buy Gordon and Steve a Scotch of their choosing if they are right and I am wrong, in 8 years, up too $120.

    If you want to modify that bet a bit, go ahead. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and will even eat something foul if warranted. Shoot, I will do it on video. Twice. Once for each of you.

    Best way to end an argument. I will put both my money and my mouth and maybe my whole digestive tract up in challenge.

    (edit) Though, if we had made this bet 10 years ago, you both would be owing me some yummy Scotch. If you want to go in together, my wife's favorite is: https://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/p/...-alexander-iii
    what i believe is the well researched body of evidence.

    the TSI is not increasing. sorry. you are simply factually wrong, and everything yo have cited for 10+ pages isn't evidence against that.

    i will be happy to take you up on your bet. how about a 6 pack of your finest local beer, and we talk about this in 2038 and see who was right. i believe in the current body of evidence and what it suggests about the warming of the climate. specifically:

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
    and

    Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}
    and



    and my position will revise itself as the body of evidence including known carbon gas emissions are plugged into the model. as we both know, the reason why the 1990s climate models were off, is because the projected growth in carbon gas emissions by humans was less than projected. this could continue into the future and revise down the amount of warming we observe. this depends on how effectively the world gets it shit together (which has surprisingly been pretty good, with the exception of the USA)

    safest bet i've ever made. and i've driven a 30 year old turbocharged porsche around the country, im no stranger to dicey bets.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-09-2018 at 10:42 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #504
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Since Santer is the point of contention, corrected HIST data should really be the referee set. Simply set a warming goal and a time limit.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  5. #505
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    All the sources I've seen state that methane has atmospheric life span of 10-12 years.

  6. #506
    pewpewpew vijil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    491
    "my position will revise itself as the body of evidence including known carbon gas emissions are plugged into the model"

    Yeah, you can't do that. Either beer on the current predictions or not, but you don't get to constantly change what you're betting on post bet.

  7. #507
    This whole conversation reflects a sad state of affairs, turning a scientific debate into a political one...

  8. #508
    Quote Originally Posted by vijil View Post
    "my position will revise itself as the body of evidence including known carbon gas emissions are plugged into the model"

    Yeah, you can't do that. Either beer on the current predictions or not, but you don't get to constantly change what you're betting on post bet.
    we cannot predict the future. esp when i am the one proposing human activity and political decisions are partially to govern the climate, it will depend on the politics and decisions humans make.

    if humans get there shit together and do a pretty good job at reducing carbon gases, then the warming will not be as great.

    if humans don't, then the warming will be more severe.

    if you want to bet on who's science is right, predicting a number will also require predicting human behavior on the subject, which means I'm now betting on human behavior, not science.



    as pointed out, this already happened. one of the talking points josh has already used is "the models from the mid 1990s were wrong!" and yes, they were. the reason they were wrong is the assumptions about human carbon gas output was greater than the actual output of carbon gas, which lead to less warming. the model was spot on, the assumption about human decisions was not. turns out, science works. and when people follow its advise, they solve problems. the models were verified to be accurate when the real carbon gas output was put into them, and the output exactly what happened.

    the model and the science was spot on, predicting the political decisions was the problem.

    that sentence merely states that. if people get there shit together, there will be less warming. that doesn't make josh right, it actually proves I'm right. the science isn't in question, as the evidence shows, i'm not going to be a fool and try to predict what humans will do for the next 20 years.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-09-2018 at 01:36 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #509
    pewpewpew vijil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    491
    But that's literally what a bet is. You predict, you put a wager on it.

    Part of the bet is betting that the assumptions in current models are correct. Those assumptions are exactly why people have issues trusting the science, especially when they all err in the same politically convenient direction.

  10. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by vijil View Post
    But that's literally what a bet is. You predict, you put a wager on it.

    Part of the bet is betting that the assumptions in current models are correct. Those assumptions are exactly why people have issues trusting the science, especially when they all err in the same politically convenient direction.
    we are betting on the science, not the politics.

    note how every single prediction made by scientists is bounded by what humans decide to do? yeah, thats why.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

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