Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Global warming out of this world?

108 posts in this topic

Posted

Fixed

Then you may as well fix that graph that ThatLookEasy posted from NASA as well... lemme know how that works out for ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What I posted was a direct correlation of GIGO for their computer model. Using data from the IPCC stating that much increase in global mean temperatures is flat out wrong. Most credible scientists quote ~.15 degrees Celsius increase since 1990 rather than 2.5 to 4.0

They are talking about since 1900, not since 1990. You do not address how over the last 35 years the sun has had a slight cooling trend, and despite this, there has been an increase in temperature. I think you should re-read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They are talking about since 1900, not since 1990. You do not address how over the last 35 years the sun has had a slight cooling trend, and despite this, there has been an increase in temperature. I think you should re-read the article.

The data referenced does not specifically state that this is for the 20th century in its totality. Even so, 1900 would still not even be close to what the data from IPCC was projected to be. The model is wrong because the basis of results are flatly false. At its closest, the projections are triple the change in degrees Celsius as a unit of measure for baseline. At its worst, 5x that amount. Psychologists were accused of practicing junk science for doing this very thing all the time.

TSI coupled with GMI has been purported to be a more complex and telling predictor than TSI alone (Courtillot et al). Nothing can be authoritatively claimed as true with any model/theory used as a basis for political policy with respect to anthropomorphic origins of global warming. The fact of the matter remains that well over 50% of the variance has yet to be accounted for when trying to understand what affects global mean temperature. If that were not the case, then the touted models that alarmists would have us believe would be in the zip code of their predictions. As it is, they are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1nCIRAFgSZ0y9Me.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1nCIRAFgSZ0y9Me.jpg

Take a moment. Give yourself a break. Let the adults talk for a bit without your pestering. Get some ice cream or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a sloppy Photoshop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

So easy to refute that you have yet to provide a shred of any contribution to the conversation

What's sad is that you think you are clever/smart. What's sadder is that other people think you are as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Uhh, you think government grants bias scientists? Do you understand the grant process? Do you understand that most grants that are funded are actually attempting to critically examine current hypotheses, or propose new ones for observed phenomena? How exactly do you propose people *fund research* if you think that government grants make one devoid of decorum and ethics?

I'm curious who these scientists are that are approaching this subject with "decorum and ethics" that think that the jury is still out on if there is any influence of human activity on climate change... because they are in the minority, considering they have no data to support their positions, just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is compelling testimony that Roger Randall Dougan Revelle thought that the political climate at the time was not conducive to reasonable policy based on sound science.

If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites