A practical guide to countering science denial

June 12, 2015 by John Cook, The Conversation
Science denial can come in many forms, but you need to be careful when debunking it. Credit: Bryan Rosengrant/Flickr, CC BY-ND

It should go without saying that science should dictate how we respond to science denial. So what does scientific research tell us?

One effective way to reduce the influence of science denial is through "inoculation": you can build resistance to by exposing people to a weak form of the misinformation.

How do we practically achieve that? There are two key elements to refuting misinformation. The first half of a debunking is offering a factual alternative. To understand what I mean by this, you need to understand what happens in a person's mind when you correct a misconception.

People build mental models of how the world works, where all the different parts of the model fit together like cogs. Imagine one of those cogs is a myth. When you explain that the myth is false, you pluck out that cog, leaving a gap in their mental model.

Debunking myths creates gaps in people’s mental models. That gap needs to be filled with an alternative fact. Credit: John Cook, Author provided

But people feel uncomfortable with an incomplete model. They want to feel as if they know what's going on. So if you create a gap, you need to fill the gap with an alternative fact.

For example, it's not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent. To prove them innocent – at least in people's minds – you need to provide an alternative suspect.

However, it's not enough to simply explain the facts. The golden rule of debunking, from the book Made To Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, is to fight sticky myths with even stickier facts. So you need to make your science sticky, meaning simple, concrete messages that grab attention and stick in the memory.

How do you make science sticky? Chip and Dan Heath suggest the acronym SUCCES to summarise the characteristics of sticky science:

Simple: To paraphrase a quote from Nobel prize winner Ernest Rutherford: if you can't explain your physics simply, it's probably not very good physics.

Unexpected: If your science is counter-intuitive, embrace it! Use the unexpectedness to take people by surprise.

Credible: Ideally, source your information from the most credible source of information available: peer-reviewed .

Concrete: One of the most powerful tools to make abstract science concrete is analogies or metaphors.

Emotional: Scientists are trained to remove emotion from their science. However, even scientists are human and it can be quite powerful when we express our passion for science or communicate how our results affect us personally.

Stories: Shape your science into a compelling narrative.

Mythbusting

Let's say you've put in the hard yards and shaped your science into a simple, concrete, sticky message. Congratulations, you're halfway there! As well as explaining why the facts are right, you also need to explain why the myth is wrong. But there's a psychological danger to be wary of when refuting misinformation.

When you mention a myth, you make people more familiar with it. But the more familiar people are with a piece of information, the more likely they are to think it's true. This means you risk a "familiarity backfire effect", reinforcing the myth in people's minds.

There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth. Lead with the science you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Unfortunately, most debunking articles take the worst possible approach: repeat the myth in the headline.

Second, provide an explicit warning before mentioning the myth. This puts people cognitively on guard so they're less likely to be influenced by the myth. An explicit warning can be as simple as "A common myth is…".

Third, explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts. This gives people the ability to reconcile the facts with the myth. A useful framework for identifying fallacies is the five characteristics of science denial (which includes a number of characteristics, particularly under logical fallacies).

Pulling this all together, if you debunk misinformation with an article, presentation or even in casual conversation, try to lead with a sticky fact. Before you mention the myth, warn people that you're about to mention a myth. Then explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts.

Putting into practice

Let me give an example of this debunking technique in action. Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here's how you might respond:

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found in a number of studies, using independent methods. A 2009 survey conducted by the University of Illinois found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was increasing global temperatures. A 2010 study from Princeton University analysed public statements about and found that among scientists who had published peer-reviewed research about climate change, 97.5% agreed with the consensus.

I was part of a team that in 2013 found that among relevant climate papers published over 21 years, 97.1% affirmed human-caused global warming.

However, one myth argues that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, citing a petition of 31,000 dissenting scientists. This myth uses the technique of fake experts: 99.9% of those 31,000 scientists are not climate scientists. The qualification to be listed in the petition is a science degree, so that the list includes computer scientists, engineers and medical scientists, but very few with actual expertise in climate science.

And there you have it.

In our online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, we debunk 50 of the most common myths about climate change. Each lecture adopts the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure where we first explain the science, then introduce the myth then explain the fallacy that the uses.

In our sixth week on the psychology of debunking, we also stress the importance of an evidence-based approach to science communication itself. It would be most ironic, after all, if we were to ignore the science in our response to denial.

John Cook is Climate Communication Research Fellow at The University of Queensland.

Explore further: Inoculating against science denial

Related Stories

Inoculating against science denial

April 27, 2015

Science denial has real, societal consequences. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than 330,000 premature deaths in South Africa. Denial of the link between smoking and cancer has caused millions of premature ...

Updating memory for fact and fiction

July 23, 2014

Sunlight can make people sneeze. Sounds ludicrous? But it's true - it's called a photic sneeze reflex, and can occur in about one out of four people. Did you believe that fingerprints are unique to each individual? That, ...

Recommended for you

A statistical look at the probability of future major wars

February 22, 2018

Aaron Clauset, an assistant professor and computer scientist at the University of Colorado, has taken a calculating look at the likelihood of a major war breaking out in the near future. In an article published on the open ...

463 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

richard_f_cronin
2.5 / 5 (34) Jun 12, 2015
Re: the statistics around Global Warming. When all else fails, hold a popularity contest with the judges all drawn from the same body of academics who agree with one another. Use "models" all based on chaos theory. Appeal to your "higher authority" and self-serving " expertise". Dismiss critics or challengers by name-calling, i.e. "denier." Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers." E = mc2 didn't get grudging acceptance until the first A bomb was detonated.
jyro
2.2 / 5 (37) Jun 12, 2015

Earth's climate has continuously changed for 4 BILLION years. We exist in a brief span when the climate is good for man. Enjoy what time we are allowed on Earth. No power or force can keep the climate on Earth from changing. It's a total waste of time to even try.


richardwenzel987
4.1 / 5 (34) Jun 12, 2015
The article assumes that the people you are trying to enlighten are rational. This strategy won't work with deniers of the greenhouse effect or religious fundamentalists. Unfortunately, I see no way to reach such people.
patnclaire
2 / 5 (29) Jun 12, 2015
I agree with richard_f_cronin in his assertions. I'd be inclined to agree with Global Warmist if they asserted that humans contributed, not sole caused, to global warming. The models are not refined enough for me. The warming measuring thermometers are put near asphalt parking lots and on tar paper roofs and we wonder why data seems hotter. I have read this assertion. I have seen confirming photos. I have yet to read that Global Warmist have taken action to alleviate these biased measures.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (33) Jun 12, 2015
If climate science were that sound and if it were not tied to socialist policies to control the lives of others, this article would not exist.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2015
Re: the statistics around Global Warming. When all else fails, hold a popularity contest with the judges all drawn from the same body of academics who agree with one another. Use "models" all based on chaos theory. Appeal to your "higher authority" and self-serving " expertise". Dismiss critics or challengers by name-calling, i.e. "denier." Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers." E = mc2 didn't get grudging acceptance until the first A bomb was detonated.


......and doesn't it make perfect sense that VietVet would be the first to give this post a 1Star. I imagine the rest of his voting clique will show up before the end of the day. Anyway Rich, good post, I'd click the 5 Star on you, but I wouldn't want to spoil the flavor science haters like VV like to over run this website with.
jyro
2.4 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
how brief is Man's existence to Earth's age you ask, lets give man the benefit of doubt and say he's been around for 200,000 years. Divide that into 4 billion and you end up with 1/2,000,000 the age of Earth. Mans existence is but a speck on Earths time line.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (52) Jun 12, 2015
Things are getting tougher and tougher for the Deniers. Their tricks and scams are being revealed, as well as their real impetus, . . political prejudice.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (24) Jun 12, 2015
how brief is Man's existence to Earth's age you ask, lets give man the benefit of doubt and say he's been around for 200,000 years. Divide that into 4 billion and you end up with 1/2,000,000 the age of Earth. Mans existence is but a speck on Earths time line.


'Liberalism'/AGWism is a mental disorder. They hate their own species yet at the same time they believe their sub-species are sooo omnipotent, they can and must 'save the planet' for the humans they hate.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (42) Jun 12, 2015
"Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers.""
-----------------------------------

Yes, they are victims of those with conservative views, once again abusing those who actually think differently, not following hateful dogma.
jyro
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2015
One of Mans weakness's has always been fear, fear of darkness, fear of the volcano god, fear of wild animals, fear of each other, fear of any difference in people from ourselves, scientist and politicians have learned to channel that un-rational fear toward climate to control people.

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom" *BERTRAND RUSSELL

Franklin D. Roosevelt
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 12, 2015
, it's not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent.


In the US court system, a suspect is ASSUMED to be innocent.
It is the function of the state to prove guilt BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT.
If AGWites want to use the trial analogy, humans must be presumed innocent of AGW and it is the function of the govt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But this puts AGW 'scientists' in a position of being an advocate, not a dispassionate observer.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (47) Jun 12, 2015
This is not the court system, Toots. It is science.

How much evidence did the conservatives need to mass-murder 200,000 Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to us?

We could REALLY use that $4,000,000,000,000 right now!
julianpenrod
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
Among other things, "science" can prove itself by proving itself. By not allowing dangerous drugs onto the marketplace indicating its only purpose is to say things to marshal loyalty from dim witted pluralities to serve New World Order interests. By not making claims like that children should be exposed to allergens later rather than earlier, which resulted in peanut allergy cases skyrocketing at least 250 percent. By admitting the documented fact that at least 90 percent of all published papers are fraudulent. Where is the call to actually have the people have actual, irrefutable, tangible evidence of claims, rather than just having nameless, faceless "experts" order them what to believe? Note the criticism of using "scientists" whose background is not revealed to refute climate change, yet the same article invokes "scientists" whose background is not indicated agreeing with climate change!
denglish
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
Science through populism.

Someone has different data sets? Convince them that they're wrong! Better yet, get all your friends together to create a majority!

As can be seen by the most vociferous above, populism is a liberal tactic to gain supporters by satiating their hunger for approval.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (35) Jun 12, 2015
Why do the conservatives who needed no evidence at all to mass-murder 200,000 civilians who had done nothing to us demand absolute proof to save the Earth?

Tell me, denglish. Why do you?
denglish
2.6 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2015
Why do the conservatives who needed no evidence at all to mass-murder 200,000 civilians who had done nothing to us demand absolute proof to save the Earth?

Tell me, denglish. Why do you?

I don't know why the conservatives needed no evidence.

Absolute proof is not needed. A reasonable doubt leads to an innocent verdict.

Are you saying that 200,000 non-combatants were murdered in Iraq? If you have proof, I think you better make some phone calls to the authorities and news channels. I'm sure they'd love to speak with you.

As an American, I'll tell you why I don't care how many muslims die with two numbers: 9, & 11.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2015
This article is a concise, step by step how to guide to proselytize. Every religion needs an effective means to gain converts.

As with most religions, dogma has an elevated status and cannot be questioned our you risk being a blasphemer. This is the "consensus science" we find in the climate sect.

gkam
2.1 / 5 (35) Jun 12, 2015
No, Dogbert, religion is based on wishful thinking and the pathetic need for an Imaginary Being. This is based not on stories from the Age of Ignorance, but findings of science.

Go back and ask Reverebnd Pat why all of the world's deadliest tornadoes are inflicted on the Bible Belt.
denglish
3.1 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2015
No, Dogbert, religion is based on wishful thinking and the pathetic need for an Imaginary Being. This is based not on stories from the Age of Ignorance, but findings of science.

Go back and ask Reverebnd Pat why all of the world's deadliest tornadoes are inflicted on the Bible Belt.

Emotion in motion.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
No, gkam. Most religions are based on a privileged class seeking to increase their power and control. This template precisely fits the AGWites.
jyro
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2015
Among other things, "science" can prove itself by proving itself. By not allowing dangerous drugs onto the marketplace !


If anyone wanted to stop crack production they would stop the trainloads of Ephedra going to Mexico.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (35) Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.
denglish
3 / 5 (23) Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.

Oh boy, here we go again!

What is it with the AGW Alarmists needing to create false real life personas in order to create internet credibility?

Don't they see that this tactic, especially when coupled with their emotional outbursts, is transparent?
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2015
Not sure why people so certain that science=truth feel compelled to make others believe as they do.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.


The other 3% renders supplanting the term 'skepticism' with 'denialism', fraudulent and politically and emotionally motivated.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2015
I have news for you denial IS part of science! Especially when the predictions of a theory fail miserably and raw data needs to be changed in order to "clean things up".
denglish
3 / 5 (20) Jun 12, 2015
I have news for you denial IS part of science! Especially when the predictions of a theory fail miserably and raw data needs to be changed in order to "clean things up".

Head of Nail, meet Hammer.

Scientific theory and the predictions made need to face falsifiability without fear.

Once falsified, the owners have two choices: Back To The Drawing Board, or Intellectual Dishonesty.

I wonder what category the above article fits into?

Not sure why people so certain that science=truth feel compelled to make others believe as they do.

Power and profit.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
gkam,
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field...

Most preachers have a master's or greater in their field. Good to know you are proselytizing with training.
MR166
3 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2015
It is funny how the satellite temperature data was accepted as gospel right up until the point that it started to show a pause. Now all of a sudden this data is unreliable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.
Translation: 'I earned an MS is something akin to environmental admiration and so I am qualified to make up bullshit such as manure dust is a MAJOR constituent of pollution in the 'high atmosphere in the central valley.'

-You called this manure 'volatile solids', which are in fact 'those solids in water or other liquids that are lost on ignition of dry solids at 1020°F (550°C). It is a water quality measure...'

-You didnt know that animal products account for less than 1% of particulate pollution in the central valley.

-You invented an undefinable term 'high atmosphere'.

Your MS failed to inform you of these things and worse, convinced you that you had the authority to make them up.

Your alleged MS is worthless.

Your opinions on related items are worthless.

You shouldnt be posting here.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 12, 2015
denglish seems to assume scientists work for money.

What did I tell you about his kind?

And BTW, my field included graduate-level ecoscience, thermodynamics of energy systems, environmental law, environmental economics, and others, not like those in religion, business, or any other soft coursework.

It is a Master of Science, not arts. What is yours in?

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2015
thermodynamics of energy systems
-And yet you chose to use BTU and calories redundantly, revealing that you dont know what these things ARE.

Do you have an explanation for this george that doesnt involve LYING or BULLSHITING?
Most preachers have a master's or greater in their field
This would be equivalent to gkams Masters in Environmental Infatuation.
denglish
3 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2015
What did I tell you about his kind?


Tell us more about your Master's Degree
gkam
1.8 / 5 (29) Jun 12, 2015
"Tell us more about your Master's Degree"
----------------------------------------

I did. Now, you tell us about yours.

Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
Things are getting tougher and tougher for the Deniers. Their tricks and scams are being revealed, as well as their real impetus, . . political prejudice.

.......call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2015
"Tell us more about your Master's Degree"
----------------------------------------

I did. Now, you tell us about yours.

Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.
And please include how it justifies you making up bullshit like fallout being the MAJOR cause of lung cancer when its not even on the list?

Youve already demonstrated that your personal experience is worse than useless.
richardwenzel987
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2015
I wonder whether anyone disputes that carbon dioxide and methane trap heat?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (30) Jun 12, 2015
".call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics."
--------------------------------------

Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it. It looks more and more like you are a stand-in for a liberal, using you to destroy the credibility of conservatives.

If you can explain the mathematics behind the climate models, I will believe you.

Go ahead.
denglish
3 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2015
I did. Now, you tell us about yours.
Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.

No. Any lies I make up about my real life will have no bearing on my internet credibility.

Now, tell us more about your Master's Degree, and how you learned that people that feel the need to create personas in anonymity are credible.

And please include how it justifies you making up bullshit

Anonymity really gives the alarmists a strong shield.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2015
".call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics."
--------------------------------------

Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it
But you have trouble with kWh. Eikka demonstrated you have no idea what it is.

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies? How come td? You think lying and making up facts is good for phys.org and science in general? Or do you have as little respect for them as george does?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2015
If you can explain the mathematics behind the climate models, I will believe you.


Which ones? Yours?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2015
denglish I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2015
Anonymity really gives the alarmists a strong shield
Everyone knows who george kamburoff is.
http://www.kamburoff.com/

-He thinks that posting his real name and addy gives him the right to make up facts and lie.

How does that work?

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."

-And so as it is clear that you are here primarily to discuss yourself, you must have a very small mind indeed.

And it does show.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2015
These comments have achieved a sig/noise of 3/41 ~ 7%. Is this a record ?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 12, 2015
Nik, we have really small minds here to attack those who have already performed in life and have experience in these fields. If the small minds get their feelings hurt, they start the never-ending revenge, driven by unbridled emotion and enabled by poor character.

The issue gets lost.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (28) Jun 12, 2015
Nik, we have really small minds here to attack those who have already performed in life and have experience in these fields. If the small minds get their feelings hurt, they start the never-ending revenge, driven by unbridled emotion and enabled by poor character.

The issue gets lost.
No sir I just hate liars, posturers, and bullshit artists. You are only one of many who have shown up here, somewhat more mundane than usual, due to a stunted intellect that never allowed itself to face its own limitations.

And your issue is always yourself.
denglish
3 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.


Are you related to Brian Williams?

Tell us more about how great you are.

Ya know, you should have taken some advice from the Alarmist's Guide to Credibility Via Populism above:

There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2015
This article demonstrates a continued insistence amongst academics of refusing to engage scientific controversies in an honest manner.

To be clear, people will not wait for the universities to meaningfully engage controversies. They will build systems which educate the public, and as those systems gain in popularity, the universities will eventually either adopt them, or risk irrelevance.

I'd also add, once again actually, that this article completely fails to mention anything at all about the work of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, who proposes that academics are just as susceptible to non-rational thinking as laypeople. He has delivered this lecture repeatedly at places such as Yale. If you look at the criteria he proposes for laypeople as a guide for when to question expert judgment, climate science and astrophysics in particular are both described by these standards as questionable science.

See https://plus.goog...posts/JV
richardwenzel987
5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2015
Actually, several human activities have potential to produce major problems (and I'm not just talking about reproducing more and more of our kind)-- ocean acidification/pollution is something to consider as well. And add to that deforestation. Where do you think our oxygen comes from? If I am not mistaken, something like 70% of this planet's oxygen is produced by oceanic plankton.
fay
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2015
i am a "denier", but i dont deny science of AGW - i dont really care about it and i dont know anything about it except for an article here and there in popular media. I dont actually deny the agw - nor do i agree with the notion - i just think that the consequences of gw would be cheaper than the expensive and stupid measures taken by governments and thats why its better to not act (if by action we implicitly mean government action)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2015
i just think that the consequences of gw would be cheaper than the expensive and stupid measures taken by governments ...better to not act (if by action ... government action)
@fay
thanks for being honest
5 stars

Well, that means that people would have to make a decision to change themselves... the problem with that is: given the choice, people are greedy and given the choice between immediate financial gain or continued financial success, and tightening the belt so that we can save our future... most people will simply be like denglish above

for the most part, people are lazy and tend to stick their heads in the sand with regard to future planning, etc
(how many people have reliable, logical, well planned IRA's? and EVERYONE gets old and to the point where work is not a possibility)

i've taken steps
but i'm the only one in my area

I follow the science & i dislike gov't and politics as well...
problem is: something MUST be done soon...
Jquip
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2015
Wait, the one example of how to combat 'science denial' ... Just a tic, here. What is a science denier? Are they oddball folks that deny people are employed in the business of science? Are they people that have gone beyond solipsism and deny that the field of science exists? Are they people that deny experimentalism? Or are they people that disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation in preference of other theories?

Putting aside that I'm not really quite certain what these nefarious creatures are, or what they're defined as, I'm quite certain they're bad. I suspect they may even eat toddlers, sacrifice goats to virgins, and hold black masses, naked under a blood moon. But the one example we're given for dealing with these certainly true, but certainly undefined, people?

Appeals to Authority. His own, in fact, given that he selectively chose his own paper about how many agreeable people agree with one another.
Jquip
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
And it's worth noting here that whatever validity there may be in the idea that we need to go full on with markedroid tactics to sell the facts that won't sell themselves with the use of the SUCCES model, Mr. Cook is holding his own work up as credible science. From the abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **. The 'facts' that Cook is using to rebut 'myths' are even a myth, they're Not Even Wrong.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2015
Hi Ghost. Good to hear from you again. You said:

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies? How come td? You think lying and making up facts is good for phys.org and science in general? Or do you have as little respect for them as george does?


Would you be so kind as to point out which lies I have told? I would be glad to discuss them with you. Just let me know how I have lied. Thanks in advance.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.


Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it
......but not anyone inside the voting circle of of this site's Star rankings.............eg: Stumpy, Ira, VietVet, you know all the usual suspects.

But you have trouble with kWh. Eikka demonstrated you have no idea what it is.
.....sounds more to me like a "born in 1923" memory problem.

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?
Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?

Why is it such a torturous read for your voting clique when I bring up Differential equations? Your voting clique is just driven into a near state apoplexy, it's the reason I had to put Stumpy on the Ignore, he can't contain himself when he reads it.

gkam
1.9 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2015
Benni, you ARE, . . you are a young liberal kid making the conservatives look stupid.

The exchange:

"And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?"

"Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?"

The first adolescent post was not from thermo but some kid screaming across the playground. The second one, yours, is just plain silly.

Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2015
Benni, you ARE, . . you are a young liberal kid making the conservatives look stupid.

The exchange:

"And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?"

"Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?"

The first adolescent post was not from thermo but some kid screaming across the playground. The second one, yours, is just plain silly.
.........now, now, now just a minute here, all I'm doing is following the lead of the plethora of "oldsters" here. If you want to sling that manner of lingo around you should first consult your mentors within the realm of the subject matter of which you so poignantly speak.

Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2015
"For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **. The 'facts' that Cook is using to rebut 'myths' are even a myth, they're Not Even Wrong."

Great point Jquip! They color the "Truth" and are PROUD of it. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a foreign concept to them.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2015
"Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff? "
----------------------------------------

I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons.

All that ended in 1979. When did you last work in the field?
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2015
Benni: You seem to be confused as to why I give you ones. Let me try to make it clear. First, instead of providing mathematical arguments (which you claim to be able to do) you spout:
.......call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.


I have pointed out to you before that diffeq is taught at the level of advanced undergraduates and then they move on to computer solutions. The reason? The reason is that only simple differential equations can be solved in closed form. Modern applications of differential equations are done through computer methods - which you don't seem to be aware of.

Second, you seem to rely on a zero-dimensional model (like waterdummy) and if you pay attention to Beer's law you must understand that you need AT LEAST a 1-D model. If you do the math you will better understand that with a radiative imbalance the earth has to heat.

Instead, you whine about GR PDEs to solve EFE.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2015
Benni: You seem to be confused as to why I give you ones
I didn't know I was confused? Certainly not about MY math skills
you spout:call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.
You betcha, and it ain't bragging if you can do it.

Modern applications of differential equations are done through computer methods - which you don't seem to be aware of.
Aw, Thermo. So that's how you get Stumpy off the hook for his lack of math skills?

If you do the math you will better understand that with a radiative imbalance the earth has to heat.
It's precisely because I can do the math. My courses in Thermodynamics give me a unique level of comprehension of Entropic processes whereby I know better than to fall for the simplistic arguments neophytes fall for, like listening to a sermon on "Radiative Imbalance".

Instead, you whine about GR PDEs. to solve EFE.
Yeah, Partials are even harder.
1958
2.1 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2015
The choice to "believe" or "deny" a scientific conclusion about a major world issue has more to do with the given set of answers to the problem than to the science itself as well as how it is presented in the political arena.
Global Warming was introduced to the world by Al Gore, a major leftist political opportunist.
All solutions were long standing leftist ideas. Nuclear power was denied as a solution although it could be scientifically justified. The right predictably resisted of corse. The left, seeing this, exploited it. Rubbing it in, not trying to even discuss possible help from the right, which one would expect if the left actually believed the science. The right continues to deny global warming because of hatred for the left, not science.
Eventually all sides might believe because there will be no escape. I blame the left and articles like this one for the slow conversion. Their goal is to score political points. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2015
how brief is Man's existence to Earth's age you ask, lets give man the benefit of doubt and say he's been around for 200,000 years. Divide that into 4 billion and you end up with 1/2,000,000 the age of Earth. Mans existence is but a speck on Earths time line.


@jyro - easy on the zeros - 4 billion divided by 200,000 is 20,000, rather than 2,000,000.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
"Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff? "

I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons.

All that ended in 1979. When did you last work in the field?
..... Today.

Today, I spent most of the day in the Spectroscopy Lab going over some gamma ray spectrograms.

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2015
Benni says:
Today, I spent most of the day in the Spectroscopy Lab going over some gamma ray spectrograms.


Then you should be ashamed at not being able to do the radiation balance for the earth.

Benni says:
It's precisely because I can do the math. My courses in Thermodynamics give me a unique level of comprehension of Entropic processes whereby I know better than to fall for the simplistic arguments neophytes fall for, like listening to a sermon on "Radiative Imbalance".


Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2015
"The right continues to deny global warming because of hatred for the left, not science. "

58 I agree with everything you said but the above. If the Right agreed with the science they would be pushing for solutions also. They object because they are afraid of further collapsing the economy without a well proven reason as justification. Anything that increases the cost of electricity will harm people and the economy.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2015
Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?


1. Is "radiative imbalance" a postulate?
or
2.Is "radiative imbalance" an hypothesis?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2015
Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?


1. Is "radiative imbalance" a postulate?
or
2.Is "radiative imbalance" an hypothesis?


You did not answer my question. Answer mine first.

If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
Radiative imbalance is definably a postulate by now and it is definitely caused by man's contribution to C02 levels. What they can't really tell is the size of the coefficient and it's sign. But come excessive heating, excessive cooling or even excessive change they will never give up on the need to reduce emissions unless a better plot can be hatched.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.


OK, if there is an imbalance with excess radiative transfer to the earth does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?

Does that make it so you can understand it?
hrfJC
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2015
Add another factor: herd instinct in virtually all scientists, not limited to climatologists, mostly academics, who depend on funding and eventual tenure.....all only achievable by total conformance to accepted establishment dogmas of opinion leaders based on biased data accumulated and published in dogmatic journals. Any deviation is punishable with excommunication from the fraternity, meaning professional suicide, essentially requiring living as "closet scientists", often waiting until retirement to step outside the establishment play pen. Under these sad circumstances you create biased data by herd instinct and imprinting, not only by climatologists, but other scientists believing in irrational speculations like the Big Bang and " accidental" no longer random, evolution. This life long industrial scientist doubts many of these speculations on climate change that may not be solely anthropogenic but in part theogenic as seen in numerous global heating and cooling cycles over time.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2015
If the Right agreed with the science they would be pushing for solutions also. They object because they are afraid of further collapsing the economy without a well proven reason as justification.


That's not a valid reason to reject the core science of AGW though. That's where some on the political right goes off the rails. It IS valid to reject the notion of cataclysmic AGW pushed by the political left, as alarmism meets the political lefts agenda of emergency redistribution of weath and government control. That's where the far left goes off the rails, by only offering leftist solutions that would inevitably provoke a negative reaction from the more moderate and political right.

Even 3% of climatologists reject anthropogenic global warming, which is actually high considering it's their own field of study and source of funding,... and around 20% reject AGW if those in related sciences are included also. This means a greater % must reject the notion of cataclysmic-AGW.

Doug_Huffman
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
LOL If it ain't Popper falsifiable then it ain't science. If it is vastly verified, as warmists' models and homeopathy, it's mere technology. Follow the money.

Read E. T. Jaynes on *ad-hockery*.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **.


Where did you get the quoted paragraph? Has it been deleted from the above article?

If so, I'm not sure why the childish name caller, would be that corrupt, as the 'abstracts [that] expressed no position on AGW' could simply be due to the fact that they're addressing a specific scientific point without explicitly stating 'anthropogenic'.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 13, 2015
Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here's how you might respond:

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.


That is actually committing the complex question fallacy.

Because the question is about whether or not climate change is true, but the answer assumes that the question is about not only that, but about the specific extent to which humans are involved in it, so the answer is not simply "yes". It's actually a rhetorical trick to push an agenda, rather than simply correct a false belief. It answers more than is being asked.

Then it goes on to beg the question by asserting that 97% agrees, but again doesn't clarify to which degree they agree etc. etc. but that's a different problem.

If you're going to educate people, don't be hypocritical. It's not helping. If a person doesn't believe that a climate change is going on, don't immediately try to force-feed them the idea that humans are causing it.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2015
Anthropogenic Comment Warming?
Manfred Particleboard
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2015
Geezus! I enjoy phys.org but why the F do I have to endure a bunch of flat earthers hanging around a science site. Kicking the same old can. Does it feel good being the ones who question something as powerful as the scientific method and it's institutions. You, the select few, the illuminated ones! It's funny how your illuminated scepticism for science doesn't question other scientific advice. Obesity linked to diabetes; reducing BMI lowers risk of developing type II diabetes, says science...Pah says conservative sceptics, '...pass the fries!'
'...what the hell do scientists know anyway, besides 90% of science is fraudulent anyhoo!'

Funny? you seem strangely silent on these topics. Yet, get told for the last hundred years that atmospheric pollution will lead to a greenhouse effect and that bad shit will happen as a consequence, you want to debate the point?
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 13, 2015
get told for the last hundred years that atmospheric pollution will lead to a greenhouse effect and that bad shit will happen as a consequence, you want to debate the point?


Simply being told so doesn't mean that the answer is completely true. When we accept that a climate change is happening, it doesn't automatically lead to accepting any particular outcome of it.

So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate.

So yes, I want to debate the point, rather than believe some chicken-little political pundit who's trying to get the society to dance around his whistle on the point of terror and panic, because we can do much more harm to ourselves by running around "fixing" things that either don't need to be fixed or cannot be fixed by our means. Wearing a hair shirt never made anyone anything but itchy.
Manfred Particleboard
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
Well you first wanted to ignore it, 'that's one opinion.' you said. More work and evidence comes to hand and you say ' well it's still controversial. The science isn't settled'
Decades of work and incontrovertible evidence to say that atmospheric pollution is linked to detrimental climatic shifts ' Science is fraudulent, it's a conspiracy!' And other petulant excuses from the illuminated ones. You aggregate of timorous zealots can't just get on with updating your world view and do something productive like the thousands of intelligent minds that are featured here on this site.
Manfred Particleboard
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
Hang on "simply " being told? The collective work of hundreds of earth scientists, in all their various disciplines and the sheer bloody hard work describing the complexity of their findings, and you flippantly think you are being "told" ? What the hell do think scientific work is? A bunch of gossip around a Mah Jong table?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.
....it remains that you still don't know why your question is incomplete.

OK, if there is an imbalance with excess radiative transfer to the earth
What makes you think there is?

does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?
Again, what makes you think it is?

Does that make it so you can understand it?
What I understand is the failure on your part to comprehend how "enthalpy" is measured. I could just plainly tell you why, but it's more fun to watch you trip all over the place as you continue laboring with your endeavors in Funny Farm Science.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
Manfred while you are on the subject of medical science, how about the "Truth" that high fat diets are responsible for heart attacks. For years doctors recommended high carb diets to lower cholesterol. This was accepted by science since a flawed study in I think the 50s. Well Atkins proved the study wrong and was called a charlatan. 97% of the scientists agreed with that false idea also.

Eikka
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 13, 2015
The common consensus among people who drive the climate change agenda is that they're trying to save the world - that they're here to help you.

Most of them are simply trying to help themselves - to feel good about themselves for going along in a social movement, or to scam money off of others. Most of the rest don't really know what they're even talking about.

The remaining few who do know what they're talking about are ridiculed by the others because the answers and solutions they give expose the "concerned citizens" as unintrested hypocrits, the scammers as criminals, and the ignorant as idiots.

For example. I've met people who genuinely believe that energy is too cheap because if people couldn't afford to use it, then we wouldn't have to procude so much of it. Of course they framed it as "reducing energy waste" or "encouraging efficiency", without a hint of irony. When pointing out that what they're really talking about is universal poverty, you get shouted at.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
So Manfred, that's your belief? Good to know your zealotry outweighs any reasonable cognitive flexibility. If you ask nicely there's a couple of little kids gangs you could join within this community. Now go play with the other kids and don't interrupt the grown ups.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 13, 2015
Hang on "simply " being told? The collective work of hundreds of earth scientists...


Yes. I was referring to the idea that we should take whatever prediction of the day as absolute truth because it's made by scientists.

10-15 years ago the Mann hockey stick was explained as "90% caused by us" by the science commentators, so politicians all around the world got the public support to institute many reforms, such as the German Energiewende, which today are proving to be premature, immature, and extremely costly.

More recently, that change turned out to be more like 50% our fault because we needed to explain why it isnt doing that anymore, and the resulting predictions about future warming became less, and most of the overly-dramatic models got dumped as implausible.

So the picture of what is actually happening is changing constantly with new data, yet some people pretend as if there is this One Truth about climate change, and are not shy to tell you all about it.
MR166
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
The sad part is that most of these green save the planet causes start out as relatively good ideas like preserving the wilderness or the humane treatment of animals. They morph out of control as the power hungry take control and quickly turn the useful idiots around them into puppets.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
denglish I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."

Do you imagine she was talking about herself?
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (21) Jun 13, 2015
The mere idea that the "scientific consensus" represents a single opinion about what is happening with the climate is in itself a myth that is perpetuated by people who understand nothing of science - or want others not to.

It's the illusion we have when we take out the uncertainty bars out of all the graphs and reduce all the complexity of the question to a single point answer.

Yet this is what we get when we say "97% of scientists agree that...", because we're implying that there's a definite right answer like 1+2=3.
Manfred Particleboard
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
Or the truth that Heliobacter pylorii is the causative agent for gastric ulcers and not 'stress'.
It's not that science doesn't have it's controversies, it's scientists who ultimately seek the truth on a given subject. Sometimes it takes time for ideas to crystallise, a certain zeitgeist to ripen them, climate science is having it's day. Having a jeering mob from the sidelines who seem remarkably ignorant about the 'rules' of the game they are watching, is what has 'got my goat' as it were. Go and sit on forums about the controversial topic of the bacterial cause of multiple sclerosis, and make the same claims about science and scientists on there if being controversial and sceptical is what you are really about. Otherwise it's just threatened ideology about a changing future which is driving you.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 13, 2015
t's scientists who ultimately seek the truth on a given subject.


But it's not the scientists who are doing the majority of the public discourse around the subject - on either side of the matter.

The "mythbusters" of science who are trying to help are themselves nothing but myth-perpetuators who are blissfully ignorant of their own fallacies.

Or the truth that Heliobacter pylorii is the causative agent for gastric ulcers and not 'stress'.


Correction: not "the" - "a" causative agent. Ulcers still have many causes.

Which is again pointing out that science is not reducible to simple answers, just as not all ulcers are treatable with antibiotics. Forgetting this leads to a form of religion.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
Does it feel good being the ones who question something as powerful as the scientific method [....] It's funny how your illuminated [skepticism] for science


You're the problem with rational discussion, with your deliberate distortion that anyone here is skeptical of science itself. The strawman that one is questioning the entire 'scientific method' simply because they are skeptical about one particular hypothesis, predictions, or proposed solution , is the same corrupt and counter-productive mentally as the charlatans who call one a "denier" who is merely skeptical about an undefined aspect of it. Such blatant dishonesty alone warrants valid skepticism.
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
? What the hell do think scientific work is? A bunch of gossip around a Mah Jong table?

That's exactly what it is if it does not allow itself to be falsified, or defends itself via censorship.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
Climate science and medical science have a lot in common. They are both distorted by powerful interests that have a vested interest in the outcomes of the research. Contrary to what some think on this board, researchers can be just as corrupt as bankers and politicians. It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2015
I have pointed out the wisdom of the crowd effect as a good means for estimating an outcome by leveraging the effect of diffused knowledge. I want to point it out again, that the crowd is wise only if you don't pick and choose who gets to answer.

Like in having people guess how many jelly beans there are in a jar. The group mean/average answer is likely to be very accurate. But - if you arbitrarily toss out answers that are "obviously wrong", such as "two", then you'll paradoxically get the wrong answer in the end because there are other wrong answers that don't fall under your criteria and you've simply biased your result.

Appealing to the consensus in climate change is first reducing the complex question to a simple and false yes/no dichotomy, and then limiting who gets to make predictions about the subject by the most numerous answer. The result will then include false predictions in a particular direction, which skews the overall result.

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2015
It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.


Few would turn up with climate research that shows a negative result, when millions of lay-people will instantly call them a crank and a shill, and keep insinuating about their scientific integrity for turning out such a non PC paper. Scientists are human afterall.

So even if you had findings that contradict the established consensus, it's very likely that you wouldn't pursue or publish. You'd be more likely to believe yourself that the findings are simply wrong.

This effect happened with the measurement of the mass of electron. When you check the old books about what the mass was thought to be, it starts off very wrong and then slowly converges towards today's value, because people who got the right value early on simply thought it must be wrong because it was so different, and didn't publish their results.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
What is a science denier?
Jquip
it is someone who has a strong fundamentalist style belief in something, be it religion, conspiracy or any other delusion, and refuses to acknowledge the reality around them, especially that which is defined clearly understood, explained and validated through the scientific method, experimentation, measurement and more

People who also cherry-pick data for self bias or personal delusions: people who accept the laws of physics apply to everything *except* this science (like climate science), or people who follow creationist dogma, like jvk, and try to modify the data to justify their religion

It varies in specifics, but the basics are clear: scientific illiteracy and a tenancy to accept pseudoscience, religion, conspiracy, faith or delusions over actual science

to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
@Jquip cont'd
Appeals to Authority. His own, in fact, given that he selectively chose his own paper
that's not really the point

The point is more this:
There is a serious problem with scientific literacy in the general public today, especially where fundamentalist religions tend to spread their brand of pseudoscience

the article is more a selection of psychological ways to deal with the fanatical anti-science, anti-fact people who refuse to accept the validated studies which demonstrate something that we DO know

Perhaps he would have been better off showing a different paper, but people tend to grab what they are most familiar with first

point is, regardless of your belief in his paper, the statistics show that we know quite a lot about climate science - far more than the "deniers" give credit to, especially the ones who forget about the laws of physics

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
most of here can do it
but not anyone inside the voting circle of of this site's Star rankings...eg: Stumpy, Ira, VietVet, ...all the usual suspects
@benniTROLL
funny thing: i can PROVE you don't know math, but you can't PROVE i don't know DE's!

i can show that you do NOT know how to do differential equations with your own posts!
here:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

you didn't know the terminology OR how to do the equations!LOL

but that's not all... apparently you can't do BASIC math, either, as you demonstrated here:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

you said
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
which "wobble cycle, benni?
I can PROVE you are a lying TROLL like rc, cd, jvk etc!
all you can do is TROLL post opinion

LOL
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
I have pointed out the wisdom of the crowd effect as a good means for estimating an outcome by leveraging the effect of diffused knowledge. I want to point it out again, that the crowd is wise only if you don't pick and choose who gets to answer.


I've referred to it as the 'collective genius of mankind',.... who are presently ignoring the AGW-Alarmists.

Now, It doesn't work to substantiate or to improve scientific theory,... in fact history has demonstrated the exact opposite i.e. religions and myths,... but it does work for the element of judgement.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
@anyone
someone ought to re-post my above to benni from themselves ...so that he can refute it...

he intentionally ignores my posts because he doesn't like admission of failure, as though ignoring it will make it all go away and somehow prove he is the "nuclear engineer" or the "Electrical engineer" he has claimed to be

One last point, too!
My daughter just graduated as an Electrical Engineer... they learn a great deal about coding, programming and computers in general...

Benni has demonstrated that he is incompetent with a computer, stating that you cannot message or e-mail the admin of an internet site if the private message function between users of the site is removed or non-operational

(apparently he has never used, or even seen, the contact button at the bottom of EVERY PO page)

LOL
he sure likes to tell people everyone else is stupid (Dunning-Kruger)
but can't seem to explain the basic OOPSIES he posted!

LMFAO
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (23) Jun 13, 2015
Hi td :)
Would you be so kind as to point out which lies I have told? I would be glad to discuss them with you. Just let me know how I have lied. Thanks in advance
Read my post again. I accused you of supporting and encouraging a liar and a bullshit artist.

Perhaps you read gkams posts as carefully as you read mine. Perhaps you don't bother to check what he says as long as he apes what your Scooby gang is selling at the moment.

Perhaps integrity is secondary to the will of the pack.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate
@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen...

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of
The debate and argument stems mostly around "what to do about it"
Yes, there are fanatics on all sides:
the "fatalists" depicting the Earth will die tomorrow (and promoting a worst case scenario without proper caveat's and error bars describing the situation, like gore
and the deniers saying "the science isn't real", from cantdrive, deng, Mr166 and ubavontuba... some even stupidly stating the earth is cooling!

the anti-science crowd is driven by their fear (of change, unknown) and the refusal to accept reality, so they cling to politics, religion, conspiracy, delusions and unsubstantiated conjecture to justify it to themselves
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 13, 2015
Hi again td :)
I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons
IOW gkam is no authority on nuclear 'stuff'. He just likes to brag about filling out validation forms and being a proofreader.

This is the kind of self-centered lowlife you welcome on your team.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
Perhaps integrity is secondary to the will of the pack.
@otto
perhaps you should review the voting and what is actually being supported and by whom before you start breaking out your soap-box and blanket accusations, hydrino-boy

you are starting to sound like Benni and RealityCheck...

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
That's exactly what it is if it does not allow itself to be falsified, or defends itself via censorship.
@deng
so asking you to actually provide valid reputable science to validate your claims (instead of blogs, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture) is censorship now?

WOW

it is not about censorship when actual science is involved
in fact, even Soon and Monckton got published -

of course, they also were instantly destroyed because of faulty science, bad data/math/etc, outright fallacious comments and so much more,
...which was proven in a refute which was published in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in climate science, NOT a Chinese start-up wanting names and attention and sheer quantity regardless of content

they published biased pseudoscience bought and paid for and it was proven
they deserve to be censored for that
No one is whining about censoring Andrew Wakefield when he did exactly the same thing... so why attack climate science?
Eddy Courant
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
Alarmists are sensing they're losing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2015
perhaps you should review the voting and what is actually being supported and by whom before you start breaking out your soap-box and blanket accusations, hydrino-boy
and perhaps if you weren't so insecure you would compose your posts a little less like e e cummings poetry?

You have something to say or not? Why don't you just say it?

Blanket accusations - gkam thinks that H2 explosions in Fukushima could cause dirty molten Pu puddles to throw IMAGINARY vessel parts 130km, without making a crater.

Conventional nukes can't throw material farther than a few km at best.

Gkam continues to claim this is true because he read it on the site of an anti radiation pill salesman.

The only blanket being thrown is the daily postings of bullshit such as this. You've seen the list. All debunked, all denied.

Gkam says he designed, implemented, and operated an electronic spy network for macnamara while a 20yo noncom.

And you want to support his right to do so.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
perhaps if you weren't so insecure ...poetry?
@otto
not about insecurity, hydrino boy
the poetic constructs in my posts are the influence of my wife and some other local poets i know and regularly visit
...Why don't you just say it?
i have
And you want to support his right to do so
just like i support your own right to free speech

that doesn't mean i agree with you, nor does it mean i support you, nor does it mean you are correct

I've tried to get gkam to provide validation and proof/links for his claims and forget about the self-promotion
he chose to ignore that advice - HIS CHOICE
so what

I simply don't vote on the stuff with no evidence

UNLESS it is pseudoscience like:
cd, deng, jvk,zeph, rc or your past insistence on hydrino's and it's perpetual motion physics

the funniest thing is how you concentrate on one and refuse to address the trolls like the ones i mentioned above

so it is no "public service", despite your claims
gkam
1.4 / 5 (25) Jun 13, 2015
The way to counter the Deniers and cranks is to ask them about their education and experience in the field.

Many get really nasty. Usually that happens when a self-deluded boy realizes he went from a Wanna-be to a Never-was.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
Conventional nukes can't throw material farther than a few km at best.
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?

there are other hazards of nuclear meltdowns
for instance:
http://www.cherno...orch.pdf

https://en.wikipe..._results

Read the first paragraph of the Wiki link

i was in Germany (Bavaria) at the time Chernobyl melted down and we weren't allowed out barefoot, had to be covered, had to import milk, meats, veggies and other stuff and more...

so an explosion is not the only concern of a meltdown
there are fires and radioactive clouds, particulates and more... things that are heavily dependent upon weather, winds and such

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
ask them about their education and experience in the field
@gkam
NO, it isnt
that argument is called : appeal to authority (also known as a logical fallacy)

unless you can PROVE they're not educated, like what we've done with Benni or Alche - it's he said/she said

authority arguments are irrelevant due to the anonymity of the internet
RULE-37 - there are no [insert claim here] on the internet

the best way to counter any denier is to provide an argument that is validated by facts and give links and references to empirical evidence usually in the form of studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals which have been validated

even in a courtroom, in order to be accepted as an authority on any subject you must first prove yourself (validate your claims), and that requires answering questions that are validated by empirical evidence and studies, as i note above

otherwise the argument is simply appeal to authority and can be argued from simple conjecture
antigoracle
2 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
The way to counter the Deniers and cranks is to ask them about their education and experience in the field.

Education and experience does not imply intelligence. Your existence confirms this.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015


Climate science and medical science have a lot in common. They are both distorted by powerful interests that have a vested interest in the outcomes of the research. Contrary to what some think on this board, researchers can be just as corrupt as bankers and politicians. It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.


What you describe is a is caused by the similarities of the subjects of research.
It is impossible to conduct controlled experiments with humans (except for the NAZIs) and with climate.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 13, 2015
Okay, test me. I can prove my assertions.

It is not appeal to authority or whatever you want to assume. Test the knowledge of the Deniers or critics. Do not fall for the trick of directing attention to the claimant who can prove himself. It is only an attempt to dodge the issue, and obvious at that.

I prove my sources, but some kids cannot let anything go, once they have invested ego in it.

Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate
@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen...

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of

That's true, but it is not a foregone conclusion that climate change will not also cause good things to happen as well. The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
The debate and argument stems mostly around "what to do about it"

Correct. What is it you would like to see "done"?
Yes, there are fanatics on all sides:...the "fatalists" depicting the Earth will die tomorrow (and promoting a worst case scenario without proper caveat's and error bars describing the situation, like gore and the deniers saying "the science isn't real", from cantdrive, deng, Mr166 and ubavontuba... some even stupidly stating the earth is cooling!

We have common ground here, I suspect there may be more.

In 2008 a major network, ABC news put together a documentary predicting New York city would be underwater on account of global warming by June 2015, now.

The deniers are not the problem. The charlatans who seek to use AGW to promote their agenda are.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.
@nou
actually, this is a logical fallacy
the adaptation which occurred in the past was over much longer time frames

you are assuming that the extremely rapid warming is equivalent to the historical adaptation to climate and environment over long time spans
but it is not a foregone conclusion that climate change will not also cause good things to happen
i'm not saying that good will not happen at all
in fact, we've seen signs of good things happening, like Rains in drought affected Africa

the problem is: the evidence and data show that this is a localized and possibly temporary situation

http://phys.org/n...ems.html

http://www.scienc...214/1223

but temporary good now may well be sacrificing overall ability to feed ourselves

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
Correct. What is it you would like to see "done"?
Same as i have always promoted:
follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence

don't follow the political or money argument, and stay the h*ll away from fundamentalist religions at all costs...
The deniers are not the problem. The charlatans who seek to use AGW to promote their agenda are
i disagree and agree...
the charlatans ARE a huge threat and they have only their own personal benefit in mind

however, the deniers support those idiots with their refusal to become literate and educated
refusing to become scientifically literate for a delusion/political/religious/reason is simply stupid

the charlatans would have NO power of the deniers would follow the science and the evidence

just like any con-job
the power is in education
don't fall for the trap of "trust me" - always validate the claims - follow the evidence

the scientific method
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate

@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen.....

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of
.....if you think that is Settled Science then you need to read the link I inserted below concerning the Sahel area in Africa, yeah, more CO2 begets more rainfall:

http://http://www.nature...664.html]http://www.nature...664.html[/url]

http://www.nature...664.html
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
Many of the solutions presented in renewable energy are not solutions at all in their present form. Wind appears to kill too many birds and is intermittent. I say appears because who knows the real truth as to numbers, kinds and what is an acceptable number of bats and birds killed before there are real ecological consequences that are worse than Co2 levels. Photovoltaic seem to have great promise but not until we have a way to store it 24/7. Until then we cannot have reliable power with an intermittent source providing a meaningful amount.
Bio fuels, other than utilizing our waste stream, robs too many nutrients from the soil.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.

@nou
actually, this is a logical fallacy,... the adaptation which occurred in the past was over much longer time frames,... you are assuming that the extremely rapid warming is equivalent to the historical adaptation to climate and environment over long time spans

A few tenths of a degree increase in global temperature per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society. In fact, had no one even discovered the correlation between global temp and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humanity would likely not even notice their adaptation and migration as a specific singular 'event'.

At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2015
follow the evidence


https://wattsupwi...0065.jpg

@deng
so asking you to actually provide valid reputable science to validate your claims (instead of blogs, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture) is censorship now?


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

and perhaps if you weren't so insecure you would compose your posts a little less like e e cummings poetry?

Love it.

the poetic constructs in my posts are the influence of my wife and some other local poets i know and regularly visit

Golden! Ohh man, this is pure comedy.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
https://wattsupwi...0065.jpg
@deng
wow, like i said
a blog is not equivalent to a validated study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation
and thank you for continuing to demonstrate it

i provide empirical evidence in validated studies from reputable peer reviewed journals
you think blogs and conjecture are equivalent to them
perfect example of dishonesty period, actually... that you think opinion trumps fact!
LOL

A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society
@nou
we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

What is to say it will not affect us, especially as it threatens food production

http://journals.p....1002167

don't forget prior mass extinction re: climate change
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

@nou
we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
@deng
wow, like i said

Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?

What about those other universities? Did they appreciate scholarly papers written in poetic form?

Anyway, compiled data gathered from reputable sources, presented in an easy to read format (regardless of where that data is stored) is plenty of evidence to show that there is not enough proof of AGW to justify the moral chaos and economic ruin being propagated by the AGW bureaucrats.

Therefore, I present you with:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Jun 13, 2015
"Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?"
----------------------------------------

How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.

And this one:
" If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.", not understanding he is judging your conclusions and statements, not you.

This is just blatant dishonesty in place and service of argument, having no alternative.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 13, 2015
What is it you would like to see "done"?

Same as i have always promoted:
follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence


Who? Individuals or government? What exactly?

If individuals,.. they are not going to "follow the science" en masse and even if they did, as those who presently state their acceptance of AGW, will on account of their nature, pursue their own individual and immediate self interest, and continue to seek the cheapest energy source despise it being CO2 based. This is the case at present.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?
@deng
trolling
baiting
reported

why don't you PROVE i claimed a degree from MIT
ROTFLMFAO
compiled data gathered from reputable sources, presented in an easy to read format (regardless of where that data is stored) is plenty of evidence to show that there is not enough proof of AGW
and again, this is proof of your intellectual dishonesty as well as dishonesty period

an article does not necessarily represent the findings of a study 100%, and typically uses hyperbole or language to draw attention to get people to buy/read the article

validated studies are about measured/observed/etc findings demonstrated repeatedly, not someone's interpretation of someone else's work
IOW- you are saying jvk's interpretations of science is as valid as any study

this is, literally, the definition of intellectual dishonesty as well as argument from ignorance
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
Who? Individuals or government?
@nou
scientists produce science, not governments
governments report on it and attempt to interpret it to their own ends (and i despise politics, but you know that already)

I also do not follow individuals unless i can validate their claims, but each claim must be validated before i will accept it, PERIOD

regardless of the individual

it is interesting that you would up-vote deng and his argument which is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty...

but then again, i expected no less from you and your philosophical leanings

I prefer EVIDENCE, not speculation
that is why you, deng and others and i will never be able to see eye-to-eye

conjecture is NOT equivalent to evidence
speculation is NOT empirical evidence
I made
you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence
Technology is NOT always adaptation

Again... until you can provide EVIDENCE, not conjecture, we are at an impasse
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
@deng
trolling
baiting
reported

Nice poem.

why don't you PROVE i claimed a degree from MIT
ROTFLMFAO

You are very emotional. Why is that?

an article

Now that we know you don't click on the links I provide (that lead to graphs built from data both sides are claiming), I present you with:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

From GISS scientists:

A key application of the sea level trend concerns the potential destruction of the marine West Antarctic ice sheet. It can be argued that the ice sheet is not close to disintegration, because it survived the Altithermal ( ~ 5000 years ago) when the global mean temperature was perhaps 1 deg C warmer than today.

http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Give us another poem.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
Nice poem
@dung
thanks
i wrote that one special for all the trolls like you
You are very emotional. Why is that?
you are intellectually dishonest, a blatant liar and scientifically illiterate. why is that?
Now that we know you don't click on the links I provide
not to blogs or pseudoscience, like WUWT
i don't do that for anyone, and i don't use them with you, either
so again, you are only proving you are intellectually dishonest
i DID open the GISS link - we will deal with those implications when i can get my other studies in line
Just because you can link a 1982 study doesn't mean we don't have better info today... that is the common fallacy used to sucker folk like you on the WUWT site into believing their con
It can be argued that the ice sheet is not close to disintegration, because it survived the Altithermal
and yet we see differently today...
and that is evidence from now- not 1982

at least this argument has some science, not WUWT
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
"Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?"
----------------------------------------

How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.

And this one:
" If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.", not understanding he is judging your conclusions and statements, not you.

This is just blatant dishonesty in place and service of argument, having no alternative.

Why are you so emotional?

Whether you admit it or not, his claim to MIT and the other universities was another attempt to create a real-world persona in order to gain internet credibility.

Just like your attempt, it failed.

btw, I saw your website. I'm willing to bet it doesn't garner much business.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
My previous post was purely factual, but yet you troll rated it a 1. Are you Denying that the continued increase in CO2 based energy is not economically driven?

What is it you would like to see "done"?

follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence

Who? Individuals or government? What exactly?

@nou
scientists produce science, not governments
governments report on it and attempt to interpret it to their own ends (and i despise politics, but you know that already)

I also do not follow individuals unless i can validate their claims, but each claim must be validated before i will accept it, PERIOD


Let's try again. I'm asking you, an AGW-enthusiasts who is concerned about it, what it is you expect to be done about it.

Do you expect government to solve the problem or individuals, and how exactly?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
@d ctd
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
Give us another poem
also, since the 1980s, CO2 and H2O emission rates from fossil fuel consumption have increased by more than 75% while the uncertainties in the estimates of the other big factors that contribute to sea-level rise have been reduced and are now more closely reconciled with the improving observations of sea-level rise [29 December 2014 by Andy Skuce]

is there something specific you want to say about that gornitz et al paper?

what is your point?
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
you are intellectually dishonest

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

not to blogs or pseudoscience, like WUWT

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

when i can get my other studies in line

Poetry, or your MIT PhD?

used to sucker folk like you

Populism. Darn. I guess I'm not popular. Ok, here's my money. Do I get to eat insects now?

and yet we see differently today...

Read all about it:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

is there something specific you want to say about that gornitz et al paper?

Yes. The Earth goes through cycles. Blaming it on humans, and then taking their money and their livelihood for it, is criminal.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
...blah blah cry to gain internet credibility
@dung
no it wasn't
it isn't anything i've not shared before nor is it anything that i don't continue to share so that people like you can learn about science

you troll rated it a 1
@Nou
nope
you are trying to push philo over science and intentionally being inflammatory... you already know the answers to those questions (previously asked and answered)
an AGW-enthusiasts
i am not an AGW "enthusiast"
I follow the science
there has been NO validated evidence refuting the AGW science i've read
what it is you expect to be done about it
this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really
I am doing what i think i should do: reduced waste, water/other conservation, small living space, self-sufficient lifestyle, minimal need for finances ...

like i said: irrelevant

i don't follow or argue politics
if you want to do that, go argue with rygg, he loves it
dung does too!
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.

you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence


It is not my conjecture that AGW is cataclysmic for humanity such that adaptation and migration are not feasible reactions. If it is yours, shouldn't you be the one providing evidence to that effect?

My evidence was already stated, that it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase (according to moderate climatologist estimates), while that is a loooong time wrt advancement in human condition (Historical fact).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
@dung
that is why i use science instead of politics, religion and emotionally charged rhetoric
Poetry, or your MIT PhD?
trolling/baiting again
i was referring to actually reading studies
you know- reputable scientific publications with validated empirical evidence?

interesting - shows you are politically, emotionally and otherwise motivated to produce your intentional dishonesty
here's my money
i don't take IOU's
Do I get to eat insects now?
if that is what you want
Earth goes through cycles
so which cycle are you blaming? ENSO? PDO? 11yr Solar cycle? Singers 1500yr cycle? multidecadal?
Blaming it on humans, and then taking their money and their livelihood for it, is criminal
but we can PROVE humans are involved
Starting here

http://www.scienc...abstract

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
@d ctd
Earth goes through cycles...Blaming it on humans
http://www.bgc.mp...IJMS.pdf

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years, so we CAN say humans are involved...Human carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated from international/US energy stats
http://www.eia.go.../annual/

plus other helpful sources

http://www.ncdc.n...419.html

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

Plus we have data on the physics of CO2 etc

https://agwobserv...perties/

we also tend to validate our findings

http://www.nature...5a0.html

(Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

shall i continue to give you evidence of human AGW?

i got plenty more studies to share
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
but we can PROVE humans are involved


By George, I've got it! Why didn't I think of this earlier?

Anyway
compiled data gathered from reputable sources
presented
in an easy to read format
regardless of where that data is stored
is
plenty of evidence
to show
that there is not enough proof of AGW
to justify the moral chaos
and economic ruin
being
propagated
by the AGW bureaucrats.

but we can PROVE humans are involved
Starting here

http://www.scienc...abstract

You should have read the abstract closer. Perhaps referencing online courses as something more credible behind the shield of anonymity didn't help after all. Ah well...you get what you pay for:

the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained.

In other words, blaming it on AGW is not justified.

Did you like my poem?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
you are trying to push philo over science and intentionally being inflammatory... you already know the answers to those questions (previously asked and answered)

I have not made reference to philosophy in this thread. If I knew your position wrt the questions I have asked, I would not have asked them. I'm just curious what it is you think will solve climate change.

an AGW-enthusiasts

i am not an AGW "enthusiast"
I follow the science

That's all I meant by 'AGW-enthusiasts', ....one who follows and promotes AGW. No insult intended.

what it is you expect to be done about it ?

this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really

It is only a political question if your answer makes reference to politics. Right, so you're making changes in your life to make yourself feel better, but other than that, are disinterested in global solutions to climate change? No? Then what do you expect should be done?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
Okay, test me. I can prove my assertions.

It is not appeal to authority or whatever you want to assume. Test the knowledge of the Deniers or critics. Do not fall for the trick of directing attention to the claimant who can prove himself. It is only an attempt to dodge the issue, and obvious at that.


.....and this cuts both ways, but all you've shown is such myopic tunnel vision that you're unable to assess such claims of moral high ground from any precipice other than the one you imagine you're standing on.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
...AGW is cataclysmic ...are not feasible...
@Nou
and i only state that there is a probability of cataclysm that rises the more we ignore the problem and fail to deal with it -that's it

This is basic logic, however, i am sure i can find a study that shows that ignoring problems are not the solution
Is that what you want?
it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase... loooong time wrt advancement ...
1- assumption that there will be no increase in temperature speed is logically inconsistent given that our "historical facts" show a rapid increase in the last 100yrs and a major factor in said increase [Lacis et al] is not being controlled

2- use specifics in time: just because we are technologically advanced doesn't meant we are sufficiently advanced to deal with cataclysm should we suddenly fail to be able to raise crops/food (an issue which may be near based upon the study i linked above- Mora, Caldwell et al)
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
you are [....] intentionally being inflammatory....


How, by asking you a question which evidently you can't answer? How exactly was I inflammatory asking for solutions to AGW?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
compiled data gathered from reputable sources
presented
in an easy to read format
@dung
there is no substitute for the SOURCE
interpretations of science don't mean accurate interpretation
Articles are NOT equivalent to studies, IOW- you are still being dishonest
You should have read the abstract closer
you should continue to read all the data and see how it applies to everything... there are a lot of studies which support the overall conclusion
you should also pay attention to dates etc...like your claim
...read the abstract closer...blaming it on AGW is not justified
this was published in October 8 2009, whereas later in at least OCT 2010 [Lacis et al- ScienceMag] validates the CO2/WV cycle and how it's feedback mechanism forces warming and why CO2 is the temp control knob

the other studies support this too
shall i continue to feed you the studies which support CO2 and AGW?

Did you like my poem?
no
i don't like liars.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
you are [....] intentionally being inflammatory....


How, by asking you a question which evidently you can't answer? How exactly was I inflammatory asking for solutions to AGW?
.........because you dared to doubt him.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
asking ... you can't answer?
@Nou
by asking a question you know i will NOT answer
i don't DO politics, nor do i follow the political arguments WRT what to do... and you HAVE asked me that in the past, and i refused to argue the politics and personal conjecture then
so there goes your argument of "If I knew I would not have asked "
No insult intended
none taken
i just differentiate between AGW enthusiasts and people who simply follow the science

It is only a political question ...
and global solutions to climate change are political

the only thing i can state that i know will help is reducing CO2 output... something which i know people like Thermo are working on (for Coal plants)
I expect changes to be made- what those are should be environmentally friendly, but i know people (esp. US) are lazy
So EDUCATION is also a must - especially for people like deng above

back later
Town run
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.

you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence

It is not my conjecture that AGW is cataclysmic for humanity such that adaptation and migration are not feasible reactions. If it is yours, [provide] evidence

i only state that there is a probability of cataclysm that rises the more we ignore the problem and fail to deal with it -that's it

Adaptation and migration are real-time natural reactions to tangible climate change which will occur as an (factual) inevitability, so the "if we ignore it" is fallacious to begin with.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase... loooong time wrt advancement ...

1- assumption that there will be no increase in temperature speed ....

Yes, you're correct; I did not mean literally per century, "indefinitely", but rather only for the next century and in relation to the 'speed' of technological advancement and adaptation.

2- use specifics in time: just because we are technologically advanced doesn't meant we are sufficiently advanced to deal with cataclysm should we suddenly fail to be able to raise crops/food

Don't use specifics in location wrt Global average warming: just because crop problems occur in one location, local climate, does not mean that other locations don't become better.

There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change. We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.


...........so, let me get try to get this straight: I have had six years of Engineering School Education in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering, but, because El Stumpo just started taking on-line courses from MIT, he is already smarter than I am? Right? What say you again are those courses he's taking?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
It is interesting that Benni just refused to answer a simple question about the change in the enthalpy of the earth when there is an imbalance in the radiant heat transfer due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess it doesn't fit the limited number of differential equations he can solve.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
what it is you expect to be done about it ?


this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really


It is only a political question if your answer makes reference to politics.


and global solutions to climate change are political


Yes, and? I don't think global solutions will work, as the "global community" can't even accomplish a relative easy task of defeating ISIS nor preventing genocide in modern times. Do you agree?

the only thing i can state that i know will help is reducing CO2 output.....

Yes, via technological advancement, i.e AGW is a technological problem, not a political one, nor a government regulation one. See, common ground.
I expect changes to be made- what those are should be environmentally friendly, but i know people (esp. US) are lazy

Not lazy, it's just that there are economic forces and natural egoism at play,.. good things not bad.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
It is interesting that Benni just refused to answer a simple question about the change in the enthalpy of the earth when there is an imbalance in the radiant heat transfer due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess it doesn't fit the limited number of differential equations he can solve.


....because you didn't understand the contradiction placed within the context of your question. It's so very obvious to this engineer who has taken courses in Thermodynamics that being the neophyte you are, you don't even know how "enthalpy" is measured, which if you did you would have understood why I came back to you with: "Your question is incomplete".

Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
"Yes, and? I don't think global solutions will work, as the "global community" can't even accomplish a relative easy task of defeating ISIS nor preventing genocide in modern times. Do you agree?"

Well I think that you would agree that the US is the biggest player in the global community. The US FUNDED AND CREATED ISIS in order to defeat Assad. WHY WOULD THE US EVER WANT TO DEFEAT ISIS?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
The US FUNDED AND CREATED ISIS in order to defeat Assad. WHY WOULD THE US EVER WANT TO DEFEAT ISIS?


Your sense of history must resemble a plate of spaghetti.

They funded and trained rebels in Syria, whom some later joined ISIS. That inevitable domino history does not mean the USA Created and Funded the terrorist group ISIS.

If the USA "created" and "funded" ISIS itself why would they then threaten the USA in return? Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Feldagast
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Things are getting tougher and tougher for the Deniers. Their tricks and scams are being revealed, as well as their real impetus, . . political prejudice.

And yet the models are still inaccurate as ever, I thought NY was supposed to be under water in 2015.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
That where you and I differ. You think that the problems in the ME are due to incompetence and I think that everything is going right according to plan. Mission Accomplished!!!!! There is only 1 3/4 years left to accomplish the goals. They have to rush.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
That where you and I differ. You think that the problems in the ME are due to incompetence and I think that everything is going right according to plan.


I have confidence in the military as a force, but not 'government planning'. Conspiracy theories are like horror movies, if you're not a teenage girl or utterly clueless, they are impossible to get your money's worth. (no offence intended)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
Benni said:
Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".


You do not need any more information to answer the question. If you have some mistake in mind that you think I have made then just blurt it out. I have made mistakes in the past and will in the future. However, you do not seem to be able to figure this one out. I assume that you would use standard thermodynamic assumptions (LTE, existing boundary conditions, and one or two defined control volumes). So, let me know what you think is wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 13, 2015
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?
So I guess you missed this thread.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

-Real nukes cant throw macroscopic PARTS, including 'small particulates' (?) further than a few km, let alone 130km. And they make huge craters.

-Gkam read an article by his favorite jap expat who used the word 'parts' when in the article he obviously meant 'dust'. Dust is carried by wind.

Gkam the phony engr didnt read the article, only the title. He then concocted this bullshit theory of H2-initiated Pu fission to explain it.

And he continues to insist its true despite the evidence.

You really want to encourage such bullshit here?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
No offense taken, I am just sad for my country and the direction in which it is being led. It is the military's job to follow instructions so there is not much help there.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?
So I guess you missed this thread.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

-Real nukes cant throw macroscopic PARTS, including 'small particulates' (?) further than a few km, let alone 130km. And they make huge craters.

-Gkam read an article by his favorite jap expat who used the word 'parts' when in the article he obviously meant 'dust'. Dust is carried by wind.

Gkam the phony engr didnt read the article, only the title. He then concocted this bullshit theory of H2-initiated Pu fission to explain it.

And he continues to insist its true despite the evidence.

You really want to encourage such bullshit here?


Ghost, he is not making those claims here. This is a different thread.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 13, 2015
Ghost, he is not making those claims here. This is a different thread
Uh huh. So as long as he doesnt post verifiable bullshit HERE, its ok for you to go into other threads where he DOES, and downrate posters who object to this?

But I DID flag crap of his in THIS thread, which you encouraged by downrating me when I objected to it...
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion
BTW this is not 'appeal to authority' as gkam is not an authority on anything. Its using spurious claims about a level of acumen which he thinks allows him to pretend to know what he clearly doesnt.

Stop encouraging this. It makes you all look very ignorant.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
Benni said:
Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".


You do not need any more information to answer the question. If you have some mistake in mind that you think I have made then just blurt it out. I have made mistakes in the past and will in the future. However, you do not seem to be able to figure this one out. I assume that you would use standard thermodynamic assumptions (LTE, existing boundary conditions, and one or two defined control volumes). So, let me know what you think is wrong.
.......learning to think is hard isn't it mr."T"? You see, if you had any knowledge of Thermodynamics you would have instantly recognized the phrase I alluded to.....I know, ask El Stumpo.

VINDOC
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history


Ironically you wouldn't have been able to post that had that been true.

Science is not "wrong" per se. If it can be verified it is accurate or less accurate in it's particular realm of application. For example general relativity did not render Newtonian theory "wrong",... in fact it is still used.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2015
Don't use specifics in location wrt Global average warming: just because crop problems occur in one location, local climate, does not mean that other locations don't become better
@Nou
Yes, i understood that, but (apologies) i also assumed you read the study i linked:
Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year. These changes will impact most of the world's terrestrial ecosystems, potentially triggering climate feedbacks. Human populations will also be affected, with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world (~30% of the world's population) highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services. These impacts will be spatially variable, indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary.
to be cont'd
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
Benni blurted:
.......learning to think is hard isn't it mr."T"? You see, if you had any knowledge of Thermodynamics you would have instantly recognized the phrase I alluded to.....I know, ask El Stumpo.


In other words, you cannot answer the question. You remind me a lot of WaterDummy who pretends he has magical information that he won't share with others of lesser intelligence. Of course, he is just wrong. I know you wouldn't pull the same trick - would you?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
@CapStumpy, Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face. Those problems are not going to occur next Tuesday at 3:30pm. We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
@nou cont'd
There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change

you had better clarify this statement
We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history
this assumption based upon?

historically, humans technological advancement, though great, has not always been due to any specific challenges except perhaps war

Our current weapons and nuclear energy are a great example of this

Modern technology has advanced incredibly rapidly in the past 200 years, true, but a great amount of that was not due to challenges ...but (more recently) was a direct result of our fears during the cold war (war again) and our fear of being conquered - once we made it and the Soviet Union faltered... and the wall dropped... we've almost stripped NASA bare

(although somewhat based upon opinion, Dr. Tyson has presented data on this to Congress)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
@CapStumpy, Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face.


Nou: I'm jumping in because I have a question on this. We can assume migration and adaption (which is covered by the IPCC) but who gets to migrate? When Bangladesh starts flooding worse, do you think India is going to let them migrate in?

What about the animals that have no migration corridors open anymore (humans have built roads across them).

This reminds me of the old days in the conversations about the ozone layer when people against the concept said that we could always were long sleeves, hats, and sun glasses - but what do plants and animals do. I remember political cartoons of animals in hats and sun glasses.

So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
let me get try to get this straight: I have had six years of Engineering School Education in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering, but, because El Stumpo just started taking on-line courses from MIT, he is already smarter than I am?
@benniTROLL
well... if the shoe fits...
all that education you claim, benni... and you can't even prove you are semi-competent at basic math! and that is proven above!

it's not MY fault that i've been able to demonstrate you are a liar, benni!

you are the one making claims about your mathematical prowess etc and being proven wrong by your OWN words and posts!

BRB guys/Nou
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
.... it does say ....."....indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary",... only after saying...... "with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services",.... as if first the latter happens AND THEN the former happens,... rather than that the latter is mitigated by the former.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2015
@ thermodynamics,.... has any of what you have cited been mitigated through global central planning in past history? Indeed, who then tells india to let them migrate in,... and who saves animals from their natural fate?

Yes, I have no reason to doubt that climatologists have at least a core understanding of the correlation between rise in global temperatures and rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and it's accumulation effect.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.
Jquip
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
@Captain Stumpy:

"It varies in specifics, but the basics are clear: scientific illiteracy and a tenancy to accept pseudoscience, religion, conspiracy, faith or delusions over actual science"

By the definition you've given here, then we must conclude that Mr. Cook is a 'science denier.' And following his recommendations and practices, we should combat his myths by using the mechanisms of marketing, religion, and pseudoscience cranks to sell the point.

"Perhaps he would have been better off showing a different paper, but people tend to grab what they are most familiar with first"

Mr. Cook has led by example on his exhortation to engage in dubious psychological ploys by utilizing and making an utterly false claim about science. If that is what he is most familiar with, so be it. Then all we're left with is an "If you can't beat them, join them" argument. Reducing scientific literacy to equality with 'science denial.'
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change


you had better clarify this statement


You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occuring on account of GW, despite that such events would theoretically get worse or better over long periods of time.

We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history
this assumption based upon?


The entirety of human history.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.


You must be WaterDummy's sock puppet to make a claim like this. You can't answer a simple question so, thanks for playing.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
you should continue to read all the data and see how it applies to everything


there is no substitute for the SOURCE
interpretations of science don't mean accurate interpretation


this was published in October 8 2009,


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

shall i continue to feed you the studies which support CO2 and AGW?


no
i don't like liars.


Tell us more about your MIT degrees and how you're a fire captain; put it in poem form.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
@ thermodynamics,.... has any of what you have cited been mitigated through global central planning in past history? Indeed, who then tells india to let them migrate in,... and who saves animals from their natural fate?

Yes, I have no reason to doubt that climatologists have at least a core understanding of the correlation between rise in global temperatures and rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and it's accumulation effect.


One example is the ban of CFCs.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.


You must be WaterDummy's sock puppet to make a claim like this. You can't answer a simple question so, thanks for playing.


..................and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?

Your problem is that you are so steeped in the shenanigans of political gamesmanship that you inherently treat math/science as a tool of convenience/inconvenience with no consequence of the utter silliness your shallow depth of knowledge of the subject material.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
Benni says:
..................and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?


I gave you enough information to answer the question. If you need more, tell me what you need and I will pass that on to you. If you want to play 20 questions try someone else.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
Denglish
If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.


Which would include condemning people for using pejorative - while at the same time as using pejorative - correct? So having been caught yourself being 'intellectually dishonest' - you are quite the hypocrite correct - and don't have any of that internet cred that you keep pushing others for.
denglish
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2015
One of the interesting studies in this thread is the power that populism holds over the AGW Alarmists.

They continually vote down people that refuse to be taxed, terrorized and crippled, and vote up their kin. The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.

I for one, welcome my insect eating masters.
denglish
3 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
Which would include condemning people for using pejorative - while at the same time as using pejorative - correct? So having been caught yourself being 'intellectually dishonest' - you are quite the hypocrite correct - and don't have any of that internet cred that you keep pushing others for.


Welcome back! Tell us about your Master's in Community Counseling again? Please?

Or do you have another false real-life persona waiting in the wings? C'mon, share! It gives you internet cred! All your AGW alarmist buddies are doin' it, it'll make you feel good!
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
Welcome back! Tell us about your Master's in Community Counseling again? Please?


Which has nothing to do with your dishonesty - as well demonstrated on this board. Hypocrite much - nice distraction.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.
All of us know science isn't up for a vote, but by way of encouragement, like applause maybe, I think I gave out a couple fat-fingered 4's by accident -- sorry.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2015
Benni says:........and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?


I gave you enough information to answer the question. If you need more, tell me what you need and I will pass that on to you. If you want to play 20 questions try someone else.


You prattle on with the same line of obfuscation and you do it because you have so little comprehension of the subject material in Thermodynamics along with the fact you asked me an inherently contradictory question. You would never have asked the question in the manner you did if you knew anything at all about ENTHALPY. Because you asked an inherently contradictory question, I probed your comprehension of the subject & you are all bent out of shape at me for your own failure to comprehend the science.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 13, 2015
Which has nothing to do with your dishonesty as well demonstrated on this board. Hypocrite much nice distraction


@Greeno:

You are the poster child for for hypocrisy when you told me a couple weeks back that you get all your electricity from wind energy. Remember it? Yeah, but after probing you with a few questions for which your responses carried hugely suspicious tones, I asked you how far from your house you installed your wind turbine. Remember that? And remember across the entire course of exchanges we were having that you had been leading me on in the belief you were getting your wind energy off the grid from some wind turbine?

Sure, you remember all those above exchanges.........then it turns out you were still connected 100% to the grid with some caveat about a request you placed with the power company to service you only with power that comes from some Wind Farm. And of course you know the Power company complied , and now you declare yourself "green".

gkam
2.1 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2015
Benni, I continue my assessment which paints you as a liberal making fun of conservatives with your silly remarks. Why would you want to assume 100% wind power means his own turbine? Because you want to do so, for argument? He is doing something, and you are not.
greenonions
5 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2015

Benni
You are the poster child for for hypocrisy when you told me a couple weeks back that you get all your electricity from wind energy. Remember it?


Yes Benni _ I remember it well - and it was totally honest - and I answered all of your questions about it. I live in Oklahoma - and I have OG and E for my utility. I am signed up for 100% wind power through OG and E. You may able to do differential equations - which I cannot - as my college math only went as far as algebra, trig, and geometry. But that does not disbar me from commenting on physorg. You may be able to do differential equations - but you will not be able to support your cheap lie that I am a hypocrite. I have been consistent - and you cannot prove otherwise.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occurring on account of GW,
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost – scientists referred to it as "a sleeping giant" and "a ticking time bomb" in 2009 ( http://www.nature....24.html ) when it was stated that we'll know more about it in 2-3 years. Sure enough, in 2013 we learned 7 facts you need to know about the Arctic methane timebomb
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
VINDOC betrays his immense ignorance
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history
Science, as discipline, is relatively new @ ~500yrs or so & is surviving well.

ie. Human thought exercised with immense increases in communication precision via printed text along with transport improvements over increasingly wider routes enabled the intelligent to avoid mere propaganda by sharing definitively applicable philosophies commensurate with the powerful view we have a shared reality ie Evidence !

Science thus Evolved ;-)

VINDOC comes across as anti-science why ? He is either a religious nut - easily influenced by an old book that claims a personal deity 'did it" OR he's a paid flunky trying to obfuscate progress or immensely dimwittedly stupid as he ignores widespread Evidence re Science's benefits, ie A dick !

VINDOC desperately needs an education in methods
https://en.wikipe...c_method

VINDOC should apologize or show whats better ?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
Feldagast claims
And yet the models are still inaccurate as ever, I thought NY was supposed to be under water in 2015
Feldagast you seem immensely confused between politicians & scientists and appear so easily led by propaganda.

Feldagast prove your claims that ANY acceptable model predicted NY "under water" & by how much ?

Thats the amazing thing about an education Feldagast, you become immune to propaganda and thus cannot be led like a robotic dog to follow some idea without exercising critical thinking in conjunction with your education in Science which must be firmly founded upon Physics ?

Feldagast community college for you, the sooner the better or grow up & go away please...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
So I guess you missed this thread
@Otto
yep
cant throw macroscopic PARTS
parts can also mean particulates (small particles) and more often than not it is (as you state) wind that carries this (as i also noted)
You really want to encourage...
I've tried to encourage argument from evidence, not authority

but you are also encouraging far worse by ignoring the worst trolls like zeph, jvk, deng, cantdrive, rc, benni etc

Read the links i gave for Benni & tell me you think she is an actual "nuclear" and "electrical Engineer' as she has claimed...(search for "apparently you can't do BASIC math" above)

Blatantly false claims, bad math, can't comprehend basic terminology like ODE, but tells everyone else we're stupid and can't do them... then continues to berate everyone as stupid, but has YET to prove a single ODE, Math, simple terms or engineer claim!

but you leave the retired old bat alone!

WHY?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face
@Nou
not assuming either.(See Thermo's post)
the study states [paraphrased] that even with localized temporary beneficial climate change, it is still likely to create a worldwide problem which will not be beneficial for migration or adaption
this makes either migration or adaption difficult
We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train
but again, you are assuming the train will remain at 3mph
the historical evidence has demonstrated that it can jump to much faster speed with our own influence
(trends indicate it is very possible that the temp will increase even more rapidly that we think, and has the potential, like a train, to surprise us, despite it's large size and noise)

it has the potential to rise faster than we thought

http://www.scienc...632.full
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
Tell us more about...
@dung
but i've not even gotten to some of the better studies yet, like the (Roberts et al 2015) study which shows changes in the rate of warming can occur naturally, but are uncommon ... or

http://www.scienc...632.full

so, you ask SPECIFICALLY for evidence, and when it is given, you call it "intellectual dishonesty" because you cant read, don't understand it, cant see how your old outdated data that has been refuted by modern data is not relevant ...

and then, to top it off, you STILL HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting your position so you simply start throwing out TROLL posts! LOL

because you can't understand science, you are going to TROLL like Uba, AntiG and shooty!

thanks for pointing that out and showing us all your true reason for posting here: Obfuscation, lies, and trolling against the science

you are the definition of DISHONEST
there is no intellectual anything in your posts
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost
@Protoplasmix
Thanks for the help !
I really should read ahead more so that i don't post something already covered by people ... like your post and Thermo's...

@NOU
they both make valid points

Tell us more about your MIT degrees and how you're a fire captain; put it in poem form
@Dung
so, you have no science to contribute to the discussion so you revert to spreading lies to attempt to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Why not tell us WHY the studies i linked are wrong?
Demonstrate that the studies don't prove AGW!
show everyone how intelligent you are... because obviously you can't read or even quote properly, as demonstrated above

tell you what... tell everyone here why you are really posting obfuscation and trying to undermine science with your political dogma... getting paid a lot to do that?

say hi to the koch's for me

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occurring on account of GW, despite that such events would theoretically get worse or better over long periods of time.
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost – scientists referred to it as "a sleeping giant" and "a ticking time bomb"


From your own link that seems far from established as scientific fact, certainly debatable ,... "the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer." - Prof David Archer,... and " the scenario is "nearly impossible." - USGS Gas Hydrates Project.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train

but again, you are assuming the train will remain at 3mph

It is the alarmist's conjecture that makes the assumption that the train will continue to increase speed, because they invoke the fallacy that there will be no technological advances,..... which is a fallacy and not an accurate portrayal of our modern history.
ThomasQuinn
2.1 / 5 (26) Jun 14, 2015
Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts.

Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.

Do we really need to look further than that to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to which side in this argument has the upper hand?

It basically just boils down to this: https://s-media-c...2d37.jpg
ThomasQuinn
2.1 / 5 (25) Jun 14, 2015
One of the interesting studies in this thread is the power that populism holds over the AGW Alarmists.

They continually vote down people that refuse to be taxed, terrorized and crippled, and vote up their kin. The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.

I for one, welcome my insect eating masters.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks: the traditional tactics of populism have all been used, in extreme amounts, by AGW-denialists: conspiracy theorizing, relativism, anti-intellectualism, scaremongering, ad-hominems, etc. etc.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.
ThomasQuinn
2.1 / 5 (22) Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.


Thank you for supporting my argument regarding cherry-picking and adding the additional point of the strawman-fallacy.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2015
Benni, I continue my assessment which paints you as a liberal making fun of conservatives with your silly remarks. Why would you want to assume 100% wind power means his own turbine? Because you want to do so, for argument?


...........it's all about the context geekam, it's all about the context & that's where Greeno was being disingenuous.

Paint me anywhere on the political landscape your heart desires. Look, I don't fault you for at least being substantially honest within the context of most of your postings, but that doesn't necessarily make you accurate in your conclusions. Comprenez vous?

He is doing something, and you are not.
Really? You know that? You've located me in StreetViews or SkyViews or something? Now you're not even trying to be honest, you're just trying to find a way to remain in the good graces of the Stumpy/Ira/VV/MM, Thermo, etc, voting clique, none of whom have ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.

greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
Benni
Greeno was being disingenuous.


What is this with all the childish personal attacks? I made a simple statement - I think it was in response to one of the childish (and often used) questions of "so what are you doing about it" I simply stated that I am currently using 100 percent wind power (can't recall exact words - does not matter). This is factually accurate - I signed up with OG & E - to pay a slightly higher price for my power - but to have it sourced from 100 percent wind.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.


And don't forget the claim that GW causes terrorists.
denglish
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2015
trends indicate it is very possible that the temp will increase even more rapidly that we think

Here's what its actually done. Look at the last 18 years (far right of the graph):
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

so, you have no science to contribute

Not to you. You don't even look at what is presented. I'll do it for the readers though.

you can't read or even quote properly, as demonstrated above

LOL. You didn't see what I did there.

It basically just boils down to this:

CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.

greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
MR 166
So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact?


Surely you would take each claim on it's merits. Could you please link us to this claim that you talk about - so that we can do exactly that.

Thanks.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2015
Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts.

Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.

Do we really need to look further than that to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to which side in this argument has the upper hand?


..........sure, as in fictitious statements straight from the Funny Farm Science crowd on this site about "enthalpy".

It's an absolute delight to see the Funny Farm Science crowd conjure up distortions about "enthalpy", and then get caught because I know they wouldn't even recognize the equation for "enthalpy" if it were abruptly placed in front of their eyeballs. But almost everyone of your voting clique fall for such bilge precisely because your problem in education is the same as for the claims you cast against others.

denglish
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2015
https://s-media-c...2d37.jpg


No one is arguing that the Earth's climate isn't changing.

If AGW studies are real, then explain this:

http://www.drroys...2013.png

Surely you would take each claim on it's merits.

Why? The AGW bureaucrats have exploited the poor predictions to sow terror, then economiv ruin, and slush-fund taxes. There is not enough AGW evidence to support the moral and economic chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating, and have already created.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

Demonstrate that the studies don't prove AGW!


http://www.drroys...2013.png

you are the definition of DISHONEST
there is no intellectual anything in your posts

Emotional much?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks; by addressing people who are skeptical as "deniers", you are using an ad-hominem.

You are cherry-picking facts by calling out "deniers" as if they are the cause of lack progress mitigating AGW,... while that cause is due to economic realities and lack of fiscally efficient scalable solutions.

Further you cited as "cherry-picking" as citing the claims made by major news network,... despite the power of that mass media.

Every item of what you listed above is what AGW-enthusiasts do routinely,... political scaremongering (alarmist propaganda), .... conspiracy theories (it's "deniers fault" and big evil oil industry),... ignoring economic reality is to cherry-pick facts as well, etc.
ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (24) Jun 14, 2015
to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


Why don't you ever call your fellow anti-AGWites like Benni out on that? Don't answer the question, it's rhetorical.
ThomasQuinn
2.3 / 5 (25) Jun 14, 2015
Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks; by addressing people who are skeptical as "deniers", you are using an ad-hominem.


No, I call people who are real skeptics, i.e. people who critique methods and conclusions in a reasoned and scientific way, skeptics. I call people who resort to conspiracy theories, strawman fallacies, political scaremongering and the like deniers because they are not skeptical - they are not open to scientific debate, they are not willing to play by scientific ground rules, and most of all, they do not provide conditions under which, if met, would convince them - they simply deny.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
"Surely you would take each claim on it's merits. Could you please link us to this claim that you talk about - so that we can do exactly that."

Onions I could extend you that courtesy but what is the point, you will just conveniently forget any inconvenient points the second time around just like you did the first time around, the polar bears are dying the polar bears are dying.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
they are not willing to play by scientific ground rules

How about when theory does not meet observation, the theory is questionable?

political scaremongering

How about the institution of punitive laws based on questionable theories and the fear created by those theories to justify the laws?

they do not provide conditions under which, if met, would convince them

That's not true. It is very hard to overcome observation, which is the foundation of skeptic argument.

Why don't you ever call your fellow anti-AGWites like Benni out on that?

I see what he does, and I do not agree with it. However, that's not my battle.
richardwenzel987
1.2 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
You know, one might also consider the impact of waste heat generated by humans as we drive automobiles and use our various electronic devices. And it is very obvious that energy generated from fossil fuels requires "burning"-- producing both carbon dioxide and heat. Of course nuclear gives you roughly equivalent heat but without the gas emission. A lot depends on conversion efficiency. So I wonder whether the waste heat generated by modern technological civilization is something significant enough to factor into climate models? I think you can get a number for this waste heat that would be noncontroversial. Then people could argue about the impact based on various models for how it might be radiated into space, ultimately. I'm surprised no one has pointed to Venus as a model of how the greenhouse effect is clearly validated in that extreme case. Does anyone argue that there is no greenhouse effect on the planet Venus?
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
As an American, I'll tell you why I don't care how many muslims die with two numbers: 9, & 11.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


I just tried that, and the bitter, acrid smoke it produced tasted and smelled exactly like the stuff the Taliban, ISIS, members of Westboro Baptist Church, or other assorted and sundry groups of fanatics are smoking.
That said, I think the world would be FAR better off without Islam. Or Christianity. Or ANY transcendental pyramid-scheme created and administered by mortal humans to further decidedly-mundane political goals.
denglish
2.7 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2015
So I wonder whether the waste heat generated by modern technological civilization is something significant enough to factor into climate models?

For humans to think that they can impact climate is flat-out arrogant. It is akin to the thought that the earth is the center of the universe.

I just tried that

I know, right? Its shame that we have to sink to the level of fanaticism in order to defend ourselves.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
Why? The AGW bureaucrats have exploited the poor predictions to sow terror, then economiv ruin, and slush-fund taxes. There is not enough AGW evidence to support the moral and economic chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating, and have already created.


......,also, the reason "Why" being that there are so many bureaucrats twisting scientific terminology to suit their own self-serving agendas. The perfect example being the exchange of Comments I've been having with Thermodynamics who is now discovering it is not fun to be caught in the jaws of the vise of someone who's "been there, done that" when it comes to ENTHALPY.

Bureaucrats with Thermo's mindset are simply the standard by which lowest common denominators are set for measurement. They use terminologies in front of unsophisticated audiences anticipating their gullibility gives them the greater moral standing above those who can see through their blatant dishonesty, eg, Al Gore & carbon trading.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
to distract from your intentional stupidity?
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


Why don't you ever call your fellow anti-AGWites like Benni out on that? Don't answer the question, it's rhetorical.
...........................it isn't "rhetorical" when you boldly bandy about a site on science claiming expertise skills in measurements/calculations of Enthalpy when you wouldn't even recognize the equation for the process if it were abruptly placed in front of your eyeballs, and judging from the background I've seen in your postings you wouldn't recognize it either.
Multivac jr_
3.1 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.


You must not be a farmer.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks; by addressing people who are skeptical as "deniers", you are using an ad-hominem.


No, I call people who are real skeptics, i.e. people who critique methods and conclusions in a reasoned and scientific way, skeptics.


Fair point, but even 'legitimate skeptics' as defined by you, if they turn out to be wrong, had failed the scientific method in some way or other.

The fact is is that "denier" is a well established ad-hominem used routinely by AGW-Enthusiasts and Alarmists, for anyone who does not behave in a way consonant with the notion that AGW is omniprescient wrt global climate.

I call people who resort to conspiracy theories, strawman fallacies, political scaremongering and the like deniers

What do you call AGW-Enthusiasts who do the same?
denglish
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
You must not be a farmer.

What does that mean?
Multivac jr_
3.3 / 5 (21) Jun 14, 2015
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history


It's been long established that 87.52% of statistics quoted in Internet comment threads are made up on the spot.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.


You must not be a farmer.

It's invalid to cite local climate events as indicative of global climate change,.... at least that's what AGW proponents state when its not for their convenience.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
So I wonder whether the waste heat generated by modern technological civilization is something significant enough to factor into climate models?


For humans to think that they can impact climate is flat-out arrogant.


So-called "waste heat" is an ENTROPIC Process without which the planet we live on & the Universe we live in would literally shrivel up & disintegrate. Of course too much of it in an isolated closed system that brings Entropy to unity (1), will shut that closed system down (heat death).

Everything in the environment acts as a heat sink to something else, which is why the planet & the Universe never reaches Entropy that is unity. Energy will always merrily continue its random distribution patterns without consequence to the machinations designed by the Political Class to circumvent the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.............Hey, mr. "T", you reading up?



Multivac jr_
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2015
You must not be a farmer.

What does that mean?

Ask one.
john33ry
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
I can't believe this argument is still going on after Climategate, in which emails of Climate Change Scientists showed admission of falsification of data and intimidation of "non believing" scientists. Here's my position. First of all I have a Masters Degree in Physical Organic Chemistry from an accredited and respected institution. Secondly, my degree involved analysis of IR spectra, which depends on the absorption in the Infrared of the carbon oxygen bond. Thirdly, experimentally, a flask of carbon dioxide heats up when exposed to sunlight, over and above a flask filled with, say, nitrogen. However, the data obtained from temperature sensors have been shown to be placed next to sources of heat, such as asphalt roofs. This data is faulty, and I, as one of the 31000 "disbelievers", will not subscribe to Climate Change models or theories until better data substantiating the global models is obtained. The old saying "garbage in, garbage out" definitely applies to this theory.
richardwenzel987
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2015
"For humans to think that they can impact climate is flat-out arrogant. It is akin to the thought that the earth is the center of the universe."

Why is it "arrogant"? For instance, do we know the magnitude of the sort of event that WOULD impact climate, and can we then demonstrate that no human activity could match such an event? We should consider the possibility of human activities that might be of small annual impact but have the capacity to sum over time to the correct magnitude-- cumulative as opposed to sudden and catastrophic like an asteroid impact. I'd just like to deal with something that could be at least roughly quantified. The earth-centered universe remark seems off the point-- not a good analogy.

greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
MR166
Onions I could extend you that courtesy but what is the point,


The point is that you are making a claim - and I am asking to see your support for that claim. Of course you have the option of a quick side step. Seems from that process that you have no support for your claim. I did some quick googling - and came across numerous media articles making that claim - but nothing from the science community. Leads me to infer that you deliberately confuse media claims - with science - in order to obfuscate.
Multivac jr_
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2015
At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.


You must not be a farmer.

It's invalid to cite local climate events as indicative of global climate change,.... at least that's what AGW proponents state when its not for their convenience.



I wasn't citing "local events." I guess I should've said "Ask 1000 farmers from various places around the world."

denglish
3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
Why is it "arrogant"?

The Earth is enormous.

For example, a single hurricane can produce up to 600 trillion watts of energy; about 200 times the amount of energy the entire world can generate.

The earth-centered universe remark seems off the point-- not a good analogy.


I don't think so. We are self-important...monkeys with brains complex enough to be narcissists. So, we think that what we do matters on scales that are super-gigantic, when it doesn't.

To the Earth, we are trivial parasites; little more.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
I wasn't citing "local events." I guess I should've said "Ask 1000 farmers from various places around the world."

What would they say?

Climate change makes farming difficult? No-one is arguing that.

You wanna know what makes farming even more difficult? Carbon laws that take away their trucks.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 14, 2015
"You wanna know what makes farming even more difficult? Carbon laws that take away their trucks."
-----------------------------------------

Show me one.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2015
gkam
2 / 5 (23) Jun 14, 2015
Way to rely on look-ups. Those are trucks on the road, not farm vehicles. Everybody has to follow those rules. Show me the strict limits on farm vehicles. There are none.

We have let Agribusiness off the hook while the rest of us got hit with cleaning up our acts. Now, the Valley is the most polluted place in the US.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
Those are trucks on the road, not farm vehicles. Everybody has to follow those rules. Show me the strict limits on farm vehicles.


(farmers use trucks on the roads too)

(not to mention the huge number of economical machinations that rely on trucks of all sizes)

You got shown one, and you're spinning. No amount of spin will conceal that the life-blood of modern life is being attacked.

We have let Agribusiness off the hook while the rest of us got hit with cleaning up our acts. Now, the Valley is the most polluted place in the US.

You said that the farmers weren't impacted, and then expressed your hatred of agricultural workers. Your agenda is harming your credibility.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.


You must not be a farmer.

It's invalid to cite local climate events as indicative of global climate change,.... at least that's what AGW proponents state when its not for their convenience.
I wasn't citing "local events." I guess I should've said "Ask 1000 farmers from various places around the world."


You still are citing local events,..... temporally as well as spatially.

When "deniers" cited the pause in increase of temp in the course of the prior 17 years,... the response by AGW-Enthusiasts was that that was not enough data to refute the general trend,.... but yet an uneducated farmer can "notice" GW outside his particular window?!

I guess I should've said, the notion that farmers are presently and actively responding to an increase of a Global average temperature increase of a mere 1.5*f as compared to way back in 1880,... is absurd and an abject fraud.
classicplastic
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
However, the data obtained from temperature sensors have been shown to be placed next to sources of heat, such as asphalt roofs. This data is faulty, and I, as one of the 31000 "disbelievers", will not subscribe to Climate Change models or theories until better data substantiating the global models is obtained. The old saying "garbage in, garbage out" definitely applies to this theory.[

Then, please explain something simple, such as why "Glacier National Park" in the US no longer has any glaciers. They've all melted and I can't find any asphalt roofs anywhere nearby that would account for this fact.

I can't think of any other explanation than, "It's getting warmer." Whether or not the warming is at least in part caused by human activities matters not a wit.

As for those who say that it's arrogant to believe that humanity can impact the earth's climate, for worse or for better, you think too small. Either lead, follow or get out of the f'ing way!
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
The Earth is enormous.

For example, a single hurricane can produce up to 600 trillion watts of energy; about 200 times the amount of energy the entire world can generate.


We are self-important...monkeys with brains complex enough to be narcissists. So, we think that what we do matters on scales that are super-gigantic, when it doesn't.

To the Earth, we are trivial parasites; little more.


As ENTHALPY injects heat into a system, ENTROPY distributes that heat such that the system gain/loss is a net zero, If this were not the case, that energy levels of 600 trillion watts/hurricane for the past billion years would have overcome the earth so long ago that our existence today would never have been possible. Yeah, the earth is enormous, a huge heat sink of rock
denglish
3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
Let go of the emotion, it will help you post outside quote brackets.

Then, please explain something simple, such as why "Glacier National Park" in the US no longer has any glaciers.

For the same reason there are no longer glaciers covering the Northern US. Glaciers wax and wane as a natural occurrence of cyclic climate changes. All natural phenomena do.

I can't think of any other explanation than, "It's getting warmer."

Actually, in a global sense, over the last 18 years, its not.

As for those who say that it's arrogant to believe that humanity can impact the earth's climate, for worse or for better, you think too small.

Maybe we should build giant air-conditioners.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015

It is the alarmist's conjecture that makes the assumption that the train will continue to increase speed
@nou
uhm- no, it isn't. it is a historical fact
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

and that is before we sorted out the "noise" and learned more
they invoke the fallacy ...not an accurate portrayal of our modern history
there is no such assumption i've ever seen

the fallacy is the assumption that we will develop the tech in time

again, historically, our main drivers of technology have been war
Even recently, with economics, science, fundamental research etc, the drivers - they're more important than historically they have been, but still not superseding war/defense
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Jun 14, 2015
"Maybe we should build giant air-conditioners."
------------------------------------

Sure, and dump the waste heat where?

Where do we get these folk?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
Not to you. You don't even look at what is presented. I'll do it for the readers though
@dung
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - the irony that you would give this comment while demonstrating it above is epic!
I notice you didn't read a single study but i have addressed your "science"-LMFAO
If AGW studies are real, then explain this
SURE
it's a blog - ie: personal opinion!
it is also a strawman - like i said above: a model doesn't have to be 100% accurate to accurately describe a trend
Insult is the last refuge..
repeating lies is the indication of a lack of intellect & argument
Emotional much?
lie much?
your whole argument rests upon a strawman lie presented in an opinion with no credible science published in a blog that has no peer review - AKA- personal conjecture based upon a blatant lie

i guess you didn't see what i did there?

thanks for proving my arguments about you to be correct, though
nothing like empirical evidence!
denglish
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
Sure, and dump the waste heat where?

Would it help you if I used /sarcasm?

uhm- no, it isn't. it is a historical fact
http://www.woodfo...60/trend


So is this:
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

your whole argument rests upon a strawman lie

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

lie much?

I wonder if you learned how to present an argument at MIT, the Fire Station, or the Poetry class.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
Actually, in a global sense, over the last 18 years, its not.
@dung
wrong again
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

and that is before we sorted out the noise BTW
this graph is exactly the same as the one used in archived posts here from the past 3 years demonstrating your comment to be a blatant absolute lie and distraction

repeating a lie doesn't make it true
lies are the refuge of the intellectually dishonest and politically and morally corrupt

interesting that the bulk of your posts are simply repetitious lies
(demonstrated above and in your own posts throughout climate threads on Phys.org)

I wonder if you learned how to present an argument at
better than your "playground" logic without evidence
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
Benni: It is clear you cannot do a simple radiative balance and don't understand enthalpy. Thanks for making it clear you don't understand heat transfer. Pathetic...
ThomasQuinn
2.3 / 5 (24) Jun 14, 2015
Let me put it this simply: would LARGE INSURANCE COMPANIES have ulterior motives for imposing "socialistic" measures on society? Or would it be in their own, capitalistic, interest to have global warming mitigated *because it is a real problem*? Because they are among the chief proponents of measures against global warming right now, and none of them doubt whether man-made causes make up the vast majority of things causing it.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
Then, please explain something simple, such as why "Glacier National Park" in the US no longer has any glaciers. They've all melted and I can't find any asphalt roofs anywhere nearby that would account for this fact.


It is false that there are no glaciers there, as there are around three dozen.

During the "Little Ice Age" 1500 - 1850, preceded by the "Medieval Warm Period", the glaciers in that area increased. Naturally post "Little Ice Age" they would be expected to recede, correct? Which they are.

Since the IPCC itself considers that the "timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation.", would I be wrong in thinking the effects of post 'Little Ice Age' on those glaciers to be also due to local climate?
denglish
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
wrong again
http://www.woodfo...60/trend


And right again!
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

Gosh...kinda like climatic cycles...up and down!

lies are the refuge of the intellectually dishonest and politically and morally corrupt

You sure do like to use my phraseology. Hasn't your MIT education, coupled with your poetic influences enabled you to form your own?

repeating a lie doesn't make it true

It does if you're an AGW apologist.

interesting that the bulk of your posts are simply repetitious lies

Lies like I'm a MIT graduate (what were the other schools? Tell us.), a Fire Truck Captain, a Poet, and what else? Too many to keep track of.

btw, you'll have to point out the lies or face a lesson re: Censorship via Humiliation not being effective against adults.

denglish
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
Let me put it this simply: would LARGE INSURANCE COMPANIES have ulterior motives for imposing "socialistic" measures on society?

My first thought is: Yes, if it reduced their business risk.

Because they are among the chief proponents of measures against global warming right now, and none of them doubt whether man-made causes make up the vast majority of things causing it.

You need to clean this up. It makes no sense.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2015
Let me put it this simply: would LARGE INSURANCE COMPANIES have ulterior motives for imposing "socialistic" measures on society? Or would it be in their own, capitalistic, interest to have global warming mitigated *because it is a real problem*? Because they are among the chief proponents of measures against global warming right now, and none of them doubt whether man-made causes make up the vast majority of things causing it.


What do you expect to be done about it?

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of energy investors to invest early in alternative technology development and get out of oil/coal,.. on that same bais?
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
We interrupt this thread to announce Philae has awakened!

http://blogs.esa....rnation/

Thanks Eikka!

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
denglish
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2015
We interrupt this thread to announce Philae has awakened!

http://blogs.esa....rnation/

This is indeed good news.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 14, 2015
"We interrupt this thread to announce Philae has awakened!"
------------------------------------

It found Jimmy Hoffa.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
point out the lies
@dung
ok
I'm a MIT graduate/PhD
i never claimed this
Poet
never claimed
Actually, in a global sense, over the last 18 years, its not
measurements of global temps over the past 18 years prove it's still warming- already linked and proven above
If AGW studies are real, then explain
"intellectual dishonesty"- a blog /opinion is not equivalent to a study
The Earth is enormous
only to something small- technically we are quite small/average at best
That's exactly what it is if it does not allow itself to be falsified, or defends itself via censorship
not one reputbale Journal is censoring science; all theories are falsifiable
we know you don't click on the links I provide
the only links i ignore are BLOGS
i clicked your graphs - random pics out of context are not empirical evidence- SOURCE?
Populism
known fallacy-strawman argument already debunked

you have quite a few more... shall i continue?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
point out the lies
@dung cont'd
compiled data gathered from reputable sources, presented in an easy to read format (regardless of where that data is stored) is plenty of evidence to show that there is not enough proof of AGW
blogs/articles are NOT studies nor do they always 100% represent SOURCE material - this is called intellectual dishonesty, intentional obfuscation, lies and redirection
another attempt to create a real-world persona in order to gain internet credibility
I've never claimed argument from authority to you-credibility comes from the evidence: i've proven my point with scientific studies; you've only given opinion, random pics out of context and non-sourced
Earth goes through cycles
while technically true, the scientific evidence also proved that the warming we are seeing is anthropogenic - you still haven't addressed those studies or the factual data therein

to be continued
denglish
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
never claimed

You attempted to use the creation of a false real life persona to gain internet credibility. That tactic gets shot down so fast that I actually felt bad for you for attempting it.

a blog /opinion is not equivalent to a study

Absolutely right. Blogs are not precluded from presenting compiled data garnered from studies.

technically we are quite small/average at best

Yet can still affect the climate. You're contradicting yourself. Self-contradictory arguments should have been sorted out in your MIT studies.

all theories are falsifiable

Like this one?
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Oops.

SOURCE?

University of Alabama

shall i continue?

Yes, I like poetry.

to be continued

Emotion in motion.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
point out the lies
@dung cont'd
The Earth goes through cycles. Blaming it on humans, and then taking their money and their livelihood for it, is criminal
presenting data that proves something is not criminal, and scientists don't make policy- your argument is fractured and political and does not refute science at all, only makes a political emotional appeal to your personal opinion over science
Ok, here's my money
i've still not seen any of your money
You should have read the abstract closer
i read the abstract and the entire study- you should have read the study closer
Perhaps referencing online courses
when have i references the on-line courses i am taking or have taken? other than to share the site link with you as a means to learn physics, i've never referenced the on-line courses to you
blaming it on AGW is not justified
studies say otherwise

2Bcont'd
denglish
3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
the scientific evidence also proved that the warming we are seeing is anthropogenic - you still haven't addressed those studies or the factual data therein

Actually, I have. Detail, man...detail!

@dung cont'd

Stopped there. Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

But I had to point out this emotional reeling:
when have i references the on-line courses i am taking or have taken?


2Bcont'd

Did you learn that form of expression at MIT?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
point out the lies
@dung cont'd
You attempted to use the creation of a false real life persona to gain internet credibility
already debunked as a lie: i've never used argument from authority with you
please show where i used MY authority and MY education as argument to refute you- quote it verbatim and then link the comment/PO article
Blogs are not precluded from presenting compiled data garnered from studies
blogs are not peer reviewed reputable science, either... only by presenting source material will you be able to make a strong argument: see above
You're contradicting yourself
no, i am not. the earth is not large or unique-
see whole comment and stop cherrypicking - that is another of your fallacies and lies
Like this one?
http://www.drroys...2013.png
a random pic is not a theory, nor is it falsifiable unless there is source material and a theory included - IE a study as well as a theory
to be continued
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
"Maybe we should build giant air-conditioners."


Sure, and dump the waste heat where?


Geek, have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics? Do you know what "waste heat" is? As I stated above, it is part of the ENTROPIC Process. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system in which "waste heat" exceeds "heat in", but yeah, I know, you & the Enthalpy Thermo guy that's part of your voting clique imagine you're the new Pons & Fleischmann?

My breath is baited waiting for one of you AGW theists to come up with an Enthalpy/ Entropy cycle mirroring what Pons & Fleishmann also claimed for their fusion project. Your "waste heat" quip is the perfect example of someone in dire need of enlightenment through education for you to break the shackles of the theism of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick. Got any more verses from your book of revelating you'd like to conjecture about?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
point out the lies
@d cont'd
Emotion in motion
posting your lies is not emotion but validation of my claims
you still can't refute the science
Actually, I have. Detail, man...detail!
you have provided one study from the 80's which does not refute of the current data, especially data from the past couple years
argument from ignorance and failure to comprehend the scientific method is a tactic from pseudoscience
Stopped there. Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect
and again, it is ok for you to insult with lies?
pot.kettle.

you still haven't justified your lies... i've proven you are a chronic liar and are simply posting emotionally charged political dogma intentionally for TROLLING
if you can prove anything... feel free to use science. i think i will treat you like RC or jvk from now on
denglish
3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
@dung cont'd

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect. Good start.

please show where i used MY authority and MY education as argument to refute you

Impossible. You have none. What is up with the random capitalization? Poetry, or emotional outburst?

only by presenting source material will you be able to make a strong argument

I bet you'll use your MIT degree to grade the veracity, too.

no, i am not. the earth is not large or unique-

Nonsense.

that is another of your fallacies and lies

Tell us more about your MIT degrees.

and a theory included

Here's some theory:

http://www.drroys...2013.png

to be continued

Emotion in motion.

gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 14, 2015
denglish your repeated and repeated and repeated nonsense about the MIT degree can only decrease what little credibility you had. You went from 0.1 to zero.

And since you are the one who seems to be emotionally tied to his opinion, we assume your comment is self-referential.
denglish
3 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
denglish your repeated and repeated and repeated nonsense about the MIT degree can only decrease what little credibility you had. You went from 0.1 to zero.

You mean I'm not popular? Darn.

And since you are the one who seems to be emotionally tied to his opinion, we assume your comment is self-referential.

Oh darn, you had me all along.

Edit:

/sarcasm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
The polar bears will be fine:

"For the first time, scientists have observed polar bears devouring white-beaked dolphins in the Arctic and are crediting global warming for introducing these two species to each other."
http://www.breitb...olphins/
AGreatWhopper
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2015
Penrod spewed:
Note the criticism of using "scientists" whose background is not revealed to refute climate change, yet the same article invokes "scientists" whose background is not indicated agreeing with climate change!


Game's up Penrod. Your Sky Daddy rep has defined your beliefs as antithetical to the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. Sinner! Repent your denying what's happening to the environment, follow your faith, go and sin no more! http://www.thegua...e-debate
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
Practical? Practical would start with not taking payments from conservative groups to not delete the idiots. That's pretty practical. Man, this place has become, "by hypocrites, for hypocrites".
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
Practical? Practical would start with not taking payments from conservative groups to not delete the idiots.

Right. Because removing the voice of dissent makes the remover's position un-disputed, and thus, correct by any and all measure.

Much the way Chamberlain's govt proved Churchill was wrong.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
"97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming"
But how many agree that CO2 is causing global warming?

"150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit."

The real climate change has been caused by deforestation, urban expansion, cattle and agriculture, and over fishing.
http://www.nature...-1.11708
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2015
The polar bears will be fine:

"For the first time, scientists have observed polar bears devouring white-beaked dolphins in the Arctic and are crediting global warming for introducing these two species to each other."
http://www.breitb...olphins/


One polar bear was observed killing and eating two dolphins, and from that single, isolated datum you concluded that there's no threat of polar bears becoming critically-endangered or extinct in the not-too-distant future due to global warming?

And yet, vast reams of data regarding the likely causes of said warming are not enough to convince you that *we* just *might* have had something to do with it?
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2015
*we* just *might* have had something to do with it?

Animals go extinct all the time. It is not an isolated event. Cute and fluffy does not preclude one from extinction events.

The Earth really doesn't care what happens to anyone or anything. Its going to do what it wants without any help, regardless of the cost.

There is not enough evidence of AGW to justify the moral and economic chaos being created by the AGW bureaucrats.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
vast reams of data

Of what?
Multivac jr_
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 14, 2015
Animals go extinct all the time...


Check the current rate of species loss vs. historic norms and then ask yourself why you're trying to minimize the significance of such an enormous (and ongoing!) loss of biodiversity. It's suicidally-myopic apathy.

Or do you not realize that if left unchecked, this trend will ultimately result in *our* extinction, too? The planet itself might not "care" about anything or anyone, but it seems to me that WE ought to.

It also seems like you're arguing from the perspective of someone who is actually looking forward to big-time bad shit going down (why else downplay all the troubling warning signs as insignificant?).
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
(why else downplay all the troubling warning signs as insignificant?).
.......sure, like coming to a science site & spending all your time on politics & just about zero time on science. Science is insignificant to your primary focus for Commenting here, that focus being the Politicization of Science. In the meantime, not a one of you have tendered the smallest iota of assistance in helping Thermo find his way through his ENTHALPY problem.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2015
but it seems to me that WE ought to.


Of course Multivac, of course. Some don't care if the next generation grows up without gorillas, or elephants, or orang-utans etc. - see http://a-z-animal...angered/

But many are concerned - and hopefully we will turn it around in time. The suggestion that we cannot affect our climate, or endanger species is of course bizarre. The next couple of decades are going to be critical - we will have to see which wolf we feed (native american story).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
But many are concerned - and hopefully we will turn it around in time

Not concerned enough to implement what will work, private property rights.
American bison were nearly extinct, now one can buy a bison burger at Ted Turner's restaurants.

Aboriginal people in Congo and Indonesia are kept impoverished by socialism leading to destruction of habitat to survive.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
(why else downplay all the troubling warning signs as insignificant?).
.......sure, like coming to a science site & spending all your time on politics & just about zero time on science. Science is insignificant to your primary focus for Commenting here, that focus being the Politicization of Science. In the meantime, not a one of you have tendered the smallest iota of assistance in helping Thermo find his way through his ENTHALPY problem.


Benni: The enthalpy problem is yours. I chose that term for a specific reason that you don't seem to be able to recognize. Have you figured it out yet or are you using WaterDummy's water bowl to figure out how the planet responds to extra IR?
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
The planet itself might not "care" about anything or anyone, but it seems to me that WE ought to.

It doesn't matter how much we care. We can't stop the Earth, or the cosmos.

btw, .5 C is not a disaster.

It also seems like you're arguing from the perspective of someone who is actually looking forward to big-time bad shit going down (why else downplay all the troubling warning signs as insignificant?).

Absolutely not! Earth disaster is scary! The warning signs are exaggerated. Look at the predictions that haven't come true. that is the point of the skeptical position.

The suggestion that we cannot affect our climate, or endanger species is of course bizarre.

Two very different things. Human migration can be traced by following game animal extinction events. Humans can help animals; no doubt. The Earth is far too large to be affected by human activity.

AGW has not been proven to the extent that justifies the economic chaos being created.

hiranyu
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
Why would you care if some people do not believe you It's not like you are trying to spread some sort of religion!

It's science!

I don't understand the emotions involved in trying to convince someone else that their world view is wrong.

I can see it if others believe that Jews are evil and should be destroyed and you happen to be Jewish! (for example)

So maybe you should stop trying to talk folks into viewing things the way you do and just kill them! It's the only way to be sure!

Seriously, this whole subject is more than a little messed up!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
"Terry Audla, the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Canada's national Inuit organization, says that when it comes to really understanding how healthy the polar bear population is, it makes no sense to pit the feelings and hunches of far-flung conservationists against the direct observations of local people who deal with the bears all the time. As far as overhunting goes, says Audla, "if you're reliant on something as a source of food, you're going to make darn sure that you're keeping that source healthy." When you live in Resolute Bay, Nunavut, it's hard to give a lot of weight to a conservation organization in southern California or a worldwide endangered species treaty that is signed in Qatar. "There's this whole fad down south about the 100-mile local diet," says Audla, laughing. "Well, we've been doing that forever."
http://www.canadi...ars3.asp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
" elephants have turned into modern-day bison—simultaneously owned by no one and more valuable dead than alive. The result has been devastating for elephant populations in many African states, with upwards of 40,000 elephants being killed annually.

In fact, about the only advocates of the giant creatures are Westerners who see the animals in zoos or on carefully controlled safaris. With great moral fervency, they insist that others sacrifice to protect elephants."

"Residents of the industrialized West wax eloquent when talking of faraway elephants, but to locals the creatures are giant rats, threatening and destructive. Every year desperate farmers die defending their lands and crops—and thus their livelihoods and families—from voracious elephants."
"The current system formally treats elephants as sacred, thereby leaving them for dead. Markets would treat elephants as commercial, thereby keeping them alive."
http://fee.org/fr...ll-ivory
denglish
3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2015
I don't understand the emotions involved in trying to convince someone else that their world view is wrong.


Unfortunately, there is much at stake. One side is trying to extort via terror. They use censorship and humiliation to further their cause; certainly, they are well-intentioned but under educated and swift to grasp the advantage of populism. The other side is trying to advance; scientifically, morally, in such a way that enables all living things to flourish in a very difficult arena.

In the end, with so much disagreement on basic facts, one must ask themselves: Which side is taking our money? Which side is taking our jobs? Which side is wrecking our economy? The economy that feeds us, that makes us wealthy, if we work for it. That takes care of the ill and impoverished despite their world view.

Which side is asking us to step back and take a second look. No laws, no guilt, no taxation, no economic ruin.

Intuitively...who would seem most trustworthy?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2015
The bison species was driven to the brink of extinction by commercial hunters and mass slaughter in the 19th century.


Today, the bison numbers are growing again both in captivity and in the wild. Some 4,000 ranches raise hundreds of thousands of bison. But it is the much rarer, wild, free-roaming bison that scored a victory this summer. They are allowed once again to share some of the tribal lands on the North American plains with Native Americans after decades of being confined to Yellowstone National Park. 



from - http://earthjusti...-montana

I guess government/private partnerships can be effective in reversing the devastating destruction of unrestrained capitalism. Yes it is good that there are people that care - and are doing the hard work of finding the balance of wildlife, and human co-existance.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html
denglish
3 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html

Yep. Something stinks.

Its too bad the bureaucrats have gotten their claws in so deep that they are already instituting crippling laws.
denglish
3 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2015
It's weird...I'm being down-voted by someone that won't post.

Courage of conviction comes to mind.
denglish
3 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2015
It's weird...I'm being down-voted by someone that won't post.

Courage of conviction comes to mind.

lol
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2015
I don't know how to look and see who has up or down voted a post - but I do see how many stars someone gets. I tend to up vote people who support science - and reason - and down vote people I feel are anti science, and pushing a political agenda. Probably a meaningless gesture - but a small thing I can do. It seems to me that there are others who follow this pattern too (just from looking at the number of stars.) Just in case you were wondering.
ThomasQuinn
1.8 / 5 (20) Jun 15, 2015
It's weird...I'm being down-voted by someone that won't post.

Courage of conviction comes to mind.

lol


You think you're so funny that you're LOL-ing your own posts? That's not pathetic at all...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
You think you're so funny that you're LOL-ing your own posts? That's not pathetic at all...

That's Zeph for you. He probably wanted to post from one of his other suckpuppet-accounts and got confused. It happens to him from time to time, where he pretends to affirm his own posts as someone else but forgets to switch over.

It's rather funny watching someone like him trying to be 'clever'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
destruction of unrestrained capitalism

No such thing as 'unrestrained capitalism'.
Funny hearing such fiction from a 'reasonable' atheist.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
What is amazing is that most if not all of the AGW supporters on this board claim to support the scientific process and the inherent truth of pure science. But yet NOAA can rework old data sets at will and there is nary one peep of objection even though it is in direct conflict with data from other sources.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 15, 2015
parts can also mean particulates (small particles) and more often than not it is (as you state) wind that carries this (as i also noted)
That was the POINT. Your butt buddy had to invent a prompt criticality to throw 'parts' which were obviously carried by the wind. You STILL didn't read that thread did you.
I've tried to encourage argument from evidence, not authority
Then you shouldn't be encouraging gkam. His 'authority' wants us to believe that manure dust is a MAJOR polluter of the 'high atmosphere' in the Central Valley.
but you are also encouraging far worse by ignoring the worst trolls like zeph, jvk, deng, cantdrive, rc, benni etc
I have most of those people turned off. So how does my ignoring them encourage them? You consistently 5/5 gkams 1 line t-shirt posts because he's a member of scooby inc.

And look at you - defending him for posting shit. When have I ever defended any on your hit list?

I ain't gonna join your mealy little AGW gang stump.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Jun 15, 2015
and I rarely read your stuff because I don't like poetry
neurotic literary affectations annoy me
people who genuinely want to convey info will usually make it as easy as possible to read
but you seem to need to muck it up for artistic purposes

i guess you think it makes it especially special???
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
If these NOAA adjustments were really needed then a good case could be made that this whole warming scare is predicated on data that we are really incapable of measuring accurately. Apparently the noise in the measuring systems exceed the changes we are trying to measure even with recently collected data.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Jun 15, 2015
Speaking of neurosis
denglish your repeated and repeated and repeated nonsense about the MIT degree can only decrease what little credibility you had. You went from 0.1 to zero.
This is like you claiming to be an engineer with an MS in environmental empathy, and then claiming that residential pools are commonly used for A/C cooling. Or demonstrating that you don't know that BTUs and calories are variations of the same thing. Or that you don't know what kWh is.

What a joke.
And since you are the one who seems to be emotionally tied to his opinion, we assume your comment is self-referential
Bwahaahaaa gkam constantly references his ersatz 'education and experience' to justify nonsense.

But really, he just wants to record his very excellent exploits for posterity.

Even though nobody gives a shit.

Except for the people down at the smithsonian, right george?

Bwahaaahaaaaaaaa
Multivac jr_
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 15, 2015
sure, like coming to a science site & spending all your time on politics & just about zero time on science. Science is insignificant to your primary focus for Commenting here, that focus being the Politicization of Science. In the meantime, not a one of you have tendered the smallest iota of assistance in helping Thermo find his way through his ENTHALPY problem.


This comment thread is under an article about "countering science denial," not any particular studies, nor global warming (just in case you forgot).
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
not any particular studies, nor global warming (just in case you forgot).

It is not a coincidence certain 'studies' are 'denied'.
'Studies' that involve the intersection of emergent systems and state coercion be most controversial and should be thoroughly vetted. Some may call this 'denial', but it a vital part of the science process and highlights the dangers of the Regulatory State.
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015
I don't understand the emotions involved in trying to convince someone else that their world view is wrong.

I can see it if others believe that Jews are evil and should be destroyed and you happen to be Jewish! (for example)

But if you're not Jewish then it's their problem, eh?

Seriously, this whole subject is more than a little messed up!

Well, at least you're posts are. FWIW, no one cares if you believe in ancient legends about God's rebellious Jewish/hippie/zombie son, or that the number 13 brings really bad luck, or whatever.

But thinkers get concerned enough to respond when y'all get together to try to legislate your made-up beliefs upon the rest of us. E.g., go ahead and be scared of the number 13 if you like, but don't make it illegal for everyone else to conduct business on the 13th day of the month. Or proscribe the purchase of beer on Sunday (which is no less inane). Or denying women autonomy over their own bodies, etc. etc. etc...
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
MR166
even though it is in direct conflict with data from other sources.


Once again you make a bold statement - but provide no support for such a statement. It is understood that complex data such as climate data - is often subjected to correction. When you have two different data sources - and they are not in full agreement (perhaps satellite, and ground based) - then some process has to happen if you want a definitive singular measure. Please support your statement - and show us which sources you are talking about, and by how much the data sets differ. What would be the new conclusion of the conflicting data set was accepted as official - without any correction.
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
Multivac
Or proscribe the purchase of beer on Sunday


In Oklahoma - you can buy beer at the grocery store - after 12 noon on Sunday. I think they don't want you to go to church drunk - but it is fine to get drunk on the way home. You are correct - crazy religious laws. We also cannot buy cars on Sunday.
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015

Not concerned enough to implement what will work, private property rights.
American bison were nearly extinct, now one can buy a bison burger at Ted Turner's restaurants.

Aboriginal people in Congo and Indonesia are kept impoverished by socialism leading to destruction of habitat to survive.


John Galt? Is that you? You do realize that you're a fictional character, don't you?

John Rogers (author, actual person) sums things up nicely:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged."

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
Onions stop playing dumb, you know the sources of conflict just as well as I do. In fact you just mentioned them in your last post. Yet you still accept the NOAA changes because they support your agenda. This just proves the AGW mantra of don't question anything that supports your position and blame big oil and the Koch brothers for anything that weakens the agenda.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2015
Onions stop playing dumb, you know the sources of conflict just as well as I do.


Again you side step. I am asking you to tell us which data sets have been manipulated, and what the outcome would be if the corrections had not been made.

You are clearly willing to make very bold claims - but to never be willing to provide any support - that someone could do some research on if they wanted. I will give you some support to my assertion that your claims of data manipulation are conspiracy theory. http://www.factch...re-data/

If you read nothing else - look at the last paragraph.

Palmer's claim that "we are building an entire agenda on falsified data" has no basis in evidence.


Sorry MR - it is you who is being lead by the nose - and do not care to check your facts.
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015
The disinfo-trolls seem to be following this how-to manual for spreading disinformation in online forums to an uncanny degree: http://cryptome.o...pies.htm
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
In 2013, NASA issued projections for 2100, saying the average temperature rise across the U.S. could be up to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by then.

Well that is .8 degree per decade. Yet, in the past 10 decades temperatures have increased a little over .1 degree per decade. Yup, this is pure AGW "Science at it's best. There is no political fear mongering here. Government agencies can always be trusted provide data that need not ever be questioned.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
Lord of the Rings is a story about the limits of power and the evils of socialism.
And we see the results of those limits every day with the failure of the Regulatory State and the desire of the socialists to obtain the one ring to rule them all.
What is also interesting how millions like Lord of the Rings yet fail to appreciate the moral of the story.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
Multivac
Or proscribe the purchase of beer on Sunday


In Oklahoma - you can buy beer at the grocery store - after 12 noon on Sunday. I think they don't want you to go to church drunk - but it is fine to get drunk on the way home. You are correct - crazy religious laws. We also cannot buy cars on Sunday.

Same laws apply in 'liberal' Massachusetts.
The roots of the socialist nanny state were planted by the Pilgrims in Mass.
The 'liberals' have ditched the church for the religion of the state.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2015
So MR - your response to my asking you for support for you claim regarding manipulation of data - is to reference a projection by NASA - that is based on climate models. No support at all for the old trope about how NASA is manipulating data. A projection is a projection - it is not data. You really make the point that you are willing to make bold statements - to spread around your conspiracy theories - but when asked to support your assertions - you have nothing. What a perfect example you are for this specific thread.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
" A projection is a projection - it is not data"

NASA is not NOAA ( the previous posts ) and projections should be based on data. "As much as xxxx" projections are nothing more than fear mongering. Yet I am willing to make a bet that none of the AGW proponents on this board will be willing to question the validity of the projection, how it was arrived at or the real reason for it being publicized..
MR166
1.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
"The 'liberals' have ditched the church for the religion of the state."

The Progressives have gone one step better, making the mention of God illegal in a public forum. Secularism has won yet people are in wonderment when the society in which they live has descended into an every man for himself way of life. They prefer to blame "Evil Corporations" for their day to day problems rather than the decay of an immoral society and the evil that it ensues.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
Progressivism has merely replaced the word Satin with the word Corporation to express the antithesis of good.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
"The 'liberals' have ditched the church for the religion of the state."

The Progressives have gone one step better, making the mention of God illegal in a public forum. Secularism has won yet people are in wonderment when the society in which they live has descended into an every man for himself way of life. They prefer to blame "Evil Corporations" for their day to day problems rather than the decay of an immoral society and the evil that it ensues.


Mr. Thank you for clarifying your position that "immoral society" by your measure of morality is responsible for all of our woes. We can now dismiss your comments as superstitious babble related to a particular mythology. I appreciate your candor. Not many people would admit (on a science site) that they believe all our woes are due to immoral behavior.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
Progressivism has merely replaced the word Satin with the word Corporation to express the antithesis of good.


Mr stumbled on the spelling of Satan. I, kind of, like the idea of a smooth cloth being evil.

Can you please provide evidence for this comment Mr? After all, this is a science site and I assume you can back this up with research.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015
"Maybe we should build giant air-conditioners."
------------------------------------

Sure, and dump the waste heat where?
Well according to you we could use residential swimming pools.
MR166
5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
Thanks for the correction Thermo. As I get older even spell check cannot hide my errors.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2015
"Mr. Thank you for clarifying your position that "immoral society" by your measure of morality is responsible for all of our woes. We can now dismiss your comments as superstitious babble related to a particular mythology. I appreciate your candor. Not many people would admit (on a science site) that they believe all our woes are due to immoral behavior."

Well Thermo call it morals or call it ethics, it makes no difference. Bad behavior and and screwing over everyone that you can rules the day. Whether you you are talking about the bankers, world leaders, or corporate CEOs the what's in it for me attitude rules the day.

I am old enough to remember when the politicians actually did make their decisions based on what was best for the nation. BTW "The Nation" at that time consisted mainly of a whole bunch of "Little People"!!!!
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015
Lord of the Rings is a story about the limits of power and the evils of socialism.


Well, Tolkien might disagree. And he would know.
"But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!" (Letter 203, 1957)


"It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory." (Letter 211, 1958)


And then there's this:
In his Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien said that he "disliked allegory in all its forms"
(from Wikipedia)
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
mr166
and projections should be based on data.


Of course - and when projections are proven to be off - we have to ask why. But still - projections are projections - and your assertion was
NOAA can rework old data sets at will and there is nary one peep of objection even though it is in direct conflict with data from other sources.


And I asked you to provide support for the assertion - and details regarding the assertion - such as which data sets are in direct conflict with the NOAA data. You remain unable to answer the question - and in my view you demonstrate that you are willing to make bold statements - that cannot be supported - and yet run around pointing your finger at others - accusing them of dishonesty.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
denglish
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2015
I was trundling about and came upon a disturbing quote:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
Thanks for the correction Thermo. As I get older even spell check cannot hide my errors.


Mr. I have to admit that one brought a smile to my face. I realize this was just a typo, but I thought it was worth pointing out. I'm also not great on spelling as my eyes fail and my fingers get tangled, but every now and then the spell checker bites me. I, normally, don't point out typos, but I thought that one was ironic enough to point out. It did merit a real smile.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
Plato is not around to sue Tolkien for plagiarism, but he might have done so based upon The Ring of Gyges.
Surely Tolkien had read Plato?
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2015
I am asking you to tell us which data sets have been manipulated

Look at the red highlighted area:

https://bobtisdal...le-1.png

what the outcome would be if the corrections had not been made.


http://www.global...nths.png
Multivac jr_
2.4 / 5 (17) Jun 15, 2015
Progressivism has merely replaced the word Satin with the word Corporation to express the antithesis of good.

Corporations as they presently operate are the economic equivalent of cancerous tumors (just in economic form).

The present Corporate Model might be morally neutral in some sense, but I'd hardly call something that could very well become our collective undoing "good."

Lest we forget, "cancer" just means "unregulated growth." And if left unchecked it leads to the same result: Death!

Unregulated growth of an economy with no regards to the various insurmountable boundary conditions imposed by the context within which economies exist is suicidal (e.g. depletion non-renewable natural resources, consumption of renewable resources at a higher rate than they can be renewed, *climate change*, the loss or diminished productivity of the world's arable land (and the ability to irrigate it) while the population needing to be fed only continues to rise, etc).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
Unregulated growth


No such thing as 'unregulated growth'.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
denglish - if that is your idea of answering the question of which data sets were manipulated - and what the outcome would be if they had not been manipulated - sorry - that is really pathetic. You show us one slide - which is sea surface temperature - and talks about adjusting data pertaining to 1886 and before, and then a second slide - that is RSS atmospheric data - for about the past 20 years.

Did you even understand the question I was asking? I want MR to support his assertion that data has been manipulated - by showing which data sets he/she is talking about - and giving us the raw data prior to the manipulation - so we can see if it actually affects the situation.

Please go back and read the link I gave regarding the fallacy of data manipulation.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
""Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)"

Great quote there Denglish. Didn't we all know that this was the ultimate goal all along.
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (20) Jun 15, 2015
No such thing as 'unregulated growth'.

So now you're a Cancer Denier, too?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html


I'll be very interested to see what they find. These researchers should daylight their adjustments and make it public, not hidden behind a pay-wall. A full list detailing what adjustments were made and how much significance each was given. Everything from Time of Observation adjustments to urban heat island compensations, how they deal with anomaly, etc.. I'd also be curious if/how they compensate for the warming bias of aging temperature stations.
Multivac jr_
2.5 / 5 (19) Jun 15, 2015
""Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
– Maurice Strong
Great quote there Denglish. Didn't we all know that this was the ultimate goal all along.

Why not include the rest of it, and the context? Here, let me help:
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
-Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, **concerning the plot of a book he would like to write** [emphasis added]
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
jeff
I'd also be curious if/how they compensate for the warming bias of aging temperature stations.


How do you know there is a warming bias to aging temperature stations?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
""Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)"

Great quote there Denglish. Didn't we all know that this was the ultimate goal all along.


If you bothered to look it up you would find this was a quote from Strong about a plot for a fiction book he would like to write:

Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write.


https://en.wikiqu...te_ref-1

But when has due-diligence been anything you would bother with?
denglish
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2015
that is really pathetic

It is an appendix page out of the report. Are you saying the report is pathetic too?

If you bothered to look it up you would find this was a quote from Strong about a plot for a fiction book he would like to write

And if you believe that spin, you'll believe more spin. Look at how Kofi Anan picked up the torch with his "let them eat insects" stuff, and how industrial nations are supposed to follow the examples set by 3rd world African nations.

But when has due-diligence been anything you would bother with?

http://www.drroys...2013.png

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html


I'll be very interested to see what they find. These researchers should daylight their adjustments and make it public, not hidden behind a pay-wall. A full list detailing what adjustments were made and how much significance each was given. Everything from Time of Observation adjustments to urban heat island compensations, how they deal with anomaly, etc.. I'd also be curious if/how they compensate for the warming bias of aging temperature stations.


Jeff: If you want the data just go get it:

http://www.ncdc.n...ck-links

It is not behind any paywall.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2015
jeff
I'd also be curious if/how they compensate for the warming bias of aging temperature stations.


How do you know there is a warming bias to aging temperature stations?


http://onlinelibr...abstract
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
No such thing as 'unregulated growth'.

So now you're a Cancer Denier, too?


'Unregulated economic growth' is fiction.

Socialism, like a cancer, grows until it kills the host.

Anti-socialism, unlike a cancer, can sustain growth by creating more wealth than it consumes.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html

It is not behind any paywall.


Thanks but I was more hoping for a list of the means with which they filter and adjust the data.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
How far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures.
"Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures"
http://www.telegr...res.html


Jeff: Once again this is not behind a paywall. The following page has a lot of links to their methods.

http://www.ncdc.n...ring.php

On the page they have a lot of links to details. You can look at it in detail if you want.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
jeffensley
How do you know there is a warming bias to aging temperature stations?
http://onlinelibr...abstract


Pretty complex topic right? Not something I had done any reading on - until your comment. Here is a sample - showing how complex the topic is http://www.knmi.n...sma2.pdf

So there is apparently a Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation - and a great deal of research being done into the subject. Most temperature differences (actual air temp vs measured) occur during the day - when winds are light, and no cloud cover. At night - of course - there is no issue. Satellite measurement of course can be use to compare temp reading over time - as well as night temps - etc.
Are you an expert in this field? Seems the science community is intimately aware of the issue of standardizing, and controlling temp measurement accuracy. It smells of conspiracy to me to just 'wonder' how they are compensating.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2015
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

– UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."

– U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Multivac jr_
2.5 / 5 (19) Jun 15, 2015
Anti-socialism, unlike a cancer, can sustain growth by creating more wealth than it consumes.


Technically-speaking there are in fact a few (woefully-inadequate) checks on excessive corporate growth, but no economic model is going to work in the real world if it implicitly ignores something as basic as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

After all, since an economy is a subset of the natural world & all of its commodities are forms of processed and/or embodied energy, the natural world sets its boundaries (i.e. how much growth is possible & how fast it can occur). And last I checked, nature was still subject to that pesky 2nd Law (which means our economy is, too).

Thanks to their legally-mandated duty to maximize profit for their shareholders above all else, the current corporate model implicitly denies this simple fact of life. This brief (~150 yr) party WILL inevitably end, & probably soon if present trends continue (I give it ~15-20 years tops, & I'm an optimist!).
SteveS
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

– UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."

– U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.


http://www.logica...thority/
Vietvet
5 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2015
Dr. Kiminori Itoh declares himself a "physical chemist familiar with environmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science."

"The Heartland Institute — "Heartland Expert." [3]
On his profile on the Heartland Institute, Itoh is described as an IPCC (Independent Panel on Climate Change) AR4 "Expert Reviewer."

This title can be misleading, as it does not mean he was officially asked by the IPCC to review material. Rather, virtually anyone who requests to view a draft IPCC report and agrees not to publicly comment on the material is considered an expert reviewer."

"According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals."

http://www.desmog...ori-itoh

@denglish

Thought I'd give you hand there by filling in what you left out.

jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2015
Pretty complex topic right?


Indeed it is. One would think that temperature would be the easiest thing to measure without debate as to what the best method is but there you have it. Now that heat is the actual concern, not surface temperature, we'll have to start coming up with estimations for air volumes that said temperature stations represent... which of course will create more debate ;) What if temperature stratification has changed through the period that we have been measuring surface temperature?

Seems the science community is intimately aware of the issue of standardizing, and controlling temp measurement accuracy. It smells of conspiracy to me to just 'wonder' how they are compensating.


I just asked a question. Unless these things are laid out before us, it's really a matter of faith. This is a fledgling science and questions/criticisms should be encouraged because at this stage, there is a lot we are still missing.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2015
May 21 - 23, 2012

"Goldenberg was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). [4]

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations."

http://www.desmog...ldenberg

@denglish

A little context is helpful.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2015
"DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations."

Yup Vet, Buffet and Soros good Koch and oil bad. Life is so easy and clear cut when you are a true believer.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
I wonder why AGWites don't want to talk about one their biggest supporters, Ken Lay from Enron?
He wrote letters to GHW Bush encouraging the US to attend the first AGW meeting and lobbied for support of the Kyoto treaty.
Multivac jr_
2.6 / 5 (20) Jun 15, 2015
I wonder why AGWites don't want to talk about one their biggest supporters, Ken Lay from Enron?
He wrote letters to GHW Bush encouraging the US to attend the first AGW meeting and lobbied for support of the Kyoto treaty.

I wonder why you are incapable of making a relevant, cogent argument?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2015
This is a fledgling science and questions/criticisms should be encouraged because at this stage, there is a lot we are still missing


I agree - but I also understand science - and that there is a built in process of checks and balance within science. It is always a feather in your cap to be the one to identify some methodological flaw - and set in motion new channels of research. The part that bothers me - is the default to assuming that the experts in the field are always erring on one side (exagerating warming) - whereas they are actually doing what scientists do - and trying to get it right. Of course questioning is valid - but not automatically asuming that there is a one sided conspiracy to exagerate data. Surely the article I referenced shows that this a very active area of research and debate.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
I wonder why AGWites don't want to talk about one their biggest supporters, Ken Lay from Enron?
He wrote letters to GHW Bush encouraging the US to attend the first AGW meeting and lobbied for support of the Kyoto treaty.

I wonder why you are incapable of making a relevant, cogent argument?

Just pointing out how a big crony socialist, Ken Lay of Enron, was major supporter of AGW because of all the money they would make.
Why deny their is big money to be made with AGW hype?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2015
Jeff said:
I just asked a question. Unless these things are laid out before us, it's really a matter of faith. This is a fledgling science and questions/criticisms should be encouraged because at this stage, there is a lot we are still missing.


Jeff, It is important to understand what is "fledgling" and what is mature. As an example, we have known for more than 100 years that adding CO2 to the atmosphere changes the radiation balance. That is spectroscopy and radiant heat transfer. Those are well known fields with well known uncertainties. What is not well known is how the extra heat is distributed throughout the fluids of the planet. We know we are heating the planet (changing the enthalpy of the fluids on the planet) we just don't have a good handle on where that heat is going to go over then next 1000 years.

We are heating because of man made CO2. Do you disagree with that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
We are heating because of man made CO2. Do you disagree with that?


Yes.

How does enthalpy apply when pressure is not constant?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2015
We are heating because of man made CO2. Do you disagree with that?


Yes.

How does enthalpy apply when pressure is not constant?


You really need to read a thermo book. Enthalpy is a state function. We generally talk in terms changes in enthalpy. To do that we differentiate the expression for enthalpy in terms of changes in the variables.

Do you think state functions become undefined when pressure changes?

Also, LTE and homogeneity holds in most systems (for differential volumes). Do you want me to explain this in more detail or can you look it up?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2015
denglish
It is an appendix page out of the report. Are you saying the report is pathetic too?


No - I am saying that your response - in no way addressed the question being asked. I was asking for a reference to the specific data that was allegedly manipulated - and also a reference to the original data - thus allowing comparison - that would allow us to understand if the manipulation was significant - and adjusted the situation to indicate more warming. Your references in no way accomplished this - it is almost as if you were not able to understand a very straight forward request.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2015
You STILL didn't read that thread did you
@otto
nope
why should i when you ignore deng, zephir, cantdrive, hannes_alfven, antigorical, realitycheck etc?
you shouldn't be encouraging gkam
and YOU should pay more attention to what i actually up-vote and DO encourage
I have most of those people turned off
then put gkam on ignore too and leave me alone about it
...join your mealy little AGW gang
WHAT gang? i aint got one
I rarely read your stuff because I don't like poetry
and i don't read your pseudoscience, especially hydrino BS
want to convey info
taking lessons from deng? right, because he has been SO scientifically accurate in these climate threads LOL

even spell check cannot hide my errors
@Mr166
it's because satin is not spelled wrong...spell check isn't capable of actually checking the correct word yet, AFAIK. There are some which can suggest a word, but can't determine if you meant "satan" not "satin" (again AFAIK)
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2015
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
90% of humans consider themselves religious and spiritual (believe in what they want to believe, and see what they want to see, imaginary things).
Climate Scientists are humans.
Thus 'climate change" has become now their religion, not science.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2015
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
90% of humans consider themselves religious and spiritual (believe in what they want to believe, and see what they want to see, imaginary things).
Climate Scientists are humans.

That's logic in your eyes? Really? I mean...really? Wow. I knew you were stupid - but this ups you to an entirely new level.

Hint: Have you ever considered that there might be a negative correlation between being a scientist and being religious? Or that two issues might not have anything to do with each other?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
Specific enthalpy: (h2 - h1) = cp * (T2 - T1)
The specific heat capacity cp is called the specific heat at constant pressure.
Equation applies at constant pressure.

Now that the top Catholic in the world is on the side of AGWites, will AGWites stop attacking religion?

Multivac jr_
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 16, 2015
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
90% of humans consider themselves religious and spiritual (believe in what they want to believe, and see what they want to see, imaginary things).
Climate Scientists are humans.
Thus 'climate change" has become now their religion, not science.


Jesus is Hope.
"Bob" is my Jesus.
Jesus is Bob Hope!

Multivac jr_
2.5 / 5 (19) Jun 16, 2015
Now that the top Catholic in the world is on the side of AGWites, will AGWites stop attacking religion?
Not until there's a consensus among religious leaders.

Just out of curiosity, where does David Miscavige (the leader of Scientology) stand on this issue? I'd say his opinion is relevant because he runs a religion that even has "science" as part of its name! I mean, how much more authoritative can you get than that?!?
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
We are heating because of man made CO2. Do you disagree with that?

I don't. I believe we play a part. How big I am unsure. We're also likely heating due to natural causes since we're on the upswing from a prior ice age as I understand it. Then the natural mechanisms that are a bi-product of warming that will possibly produce increased warming. Hard for us to take credit for that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 16, 2015
@Mr bard
nope
So you continue to defend someone without understanding why he is being attacked. IOW you're willing to defend someone just because he agrees with what you say.

Pretty foul stump.
why should I when you ignore
But I don't. I've often tangled with zeph and certainly rc.

But to condemn the others I would have to understand the whole AGW argument. I don't know much about it and wouldn't pretend to know.

But I do know that gkam posts lies and bullshit while pretending to be an engineer and an expert on subjects I AM familiar with.

And he will continue to be attacked by myself and others for it.
leave me alone about it
YOU butt in and defend gkam and td, which started this whole dialog.
especially hydrino bullshit
Well that's good because you're willfully ignorant of it. You're the fireman who didn't know what an expat hermit reaction is, remember?
taking lessons from deng
-Perhaps you want to reword this last thought so it rhymes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (23) Jun 16, 2015
"Expat hermit" - exothermic - god I hate spellcheck almost as much as I hate pathological liars and bullshit artists. And AGW gang violence.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
Yea Jeff that is a favorite of the AGW crowd, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and thus it is a factor in warming. Yet, if you ask them to provide a real number as to the amount of warming man's contribution to Co2 levels is responsible for they just give you a blank stare since they are unable to quantify man's contribution. If you want to have even more fun ask them to prove how a 1 or 2 degree temperature rise will affect man's survival.
Accounts
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2015
"Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers.""

Oh nonsense. Get an elementry history of science book. The Galileon affair was ENTIRELY about a political power struggle between science (Galileo) and religon (the pope). "Peer review", which barely existed at the time! Had nothing to do with it. You're trying to create a myth.

Accounts
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2015
My my. The deniers are getting a bit testy aren't they?

That's because they know they are losing.

That does NOT prove they are wrong but it does prove they are hopeless.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2015
So Accounts, let me get this straight, you are claiming that the Church had no influence in scientific discourse then and that the governments of the world have no influence in scientific discourse today. Is that your position?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
Specific enthalpy: (h2 - h1) = cp * (T2 - T1)
The specific heat capacity cp is called the specific heat at constant pressure.
Equation applies at constant pressure.


Rygg: Yes, that equation applies at constant pressure. However, it is an engineering approximation only when constant pressure applies. It is actually, an approximation of the integral when constant pressure applies. You are making the same mistake Benni did when he came to the same conclusion. To your credit, you actually answered my question while Benni fled.

Try this expression dH = T dS + V dP

What this indicates is that you and Benni do not understand thermodynamic state functions (which many people do not and is OK). If we go back to your approximation it is fine as long as the pressure changes are not large and the material is either incompressible or an ideal gas. In the oceans, your approximation becomes less accurate as well as in real gases. Thanks for explaining your logic.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
Ryg: Continued. I wanted to explain that there are many ways to define changes in the state of a system. We, generally, use enthalpy because it can describe many potential changes including chemical potential and potential differences in pressure, volume, and temperature. In the case of your equation an engineer typically applies it when Cp is approximately a constant, but you can look up H1 and H2, even at different pressures and the difference is the change of enthalpy. However, if the chemistry changes, or it is a mixture of materials (like sea water) there are also volume changes (expansion of the ocean) and chemistry changes (changes in pH). That is simplified but I would be glad to expand any part of the discussion. Again, I really appreciate your clarifying your logic so I could answer. Benni just tucked his tail between his legs and fled.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2015
it is almost as if you were not able to understand a very straight forward request.


Perhaps I should have gotten a Master's Degree in Community Counseling; like you did.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2015
Perhaps I should have gotten a Master's Degree in Community Counseling; like you did.


Go for it. I suspect you will have some difficulty. Graduate school does require a certain level of maturity. The immature level of your posts (constant personal attacks on people - rather than looking at the issues) suggest it may be a bit above you. Let us know how it works out.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
http://www.huffin...062.html

Too cold for lobsters.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 16, 2015
Benni just tucked his tail between his legs and fled.
.......and you spent over 48 hours to come up with the concept of "constant pressure" for the calculation/measurement for ENTHALPY.....talk about taking a pass.

I gave you the hint as to the single most important parameter under which enthalpy is calculated, I even gave you the first letter (c) of the phrase of the most important parameter used in the calculation & you punted. A person experienced using enthalpy calculations would never have taken two days of contemplating to come up with CONSTANT PRESSURE, but you did, the reason being that you hadn't yet made it to WikiPedia to come up with something.

Now that you've been enlightened, it should be self-evident why your ludicrous hypothesis of energy imbalance doesn't work. It's because the Earth's atmosphere does not have a CONSTANT PRESSURE, but I'll hand it to you Funny Farm Science clods to imagine there must be a way to come up with a nonlinear PDE to do it.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2015
Benni just tucked his tail between his legs and fled.
.......and you spent over 48 hours to come up with the concept of "constant pressure" for the calculation/measurement for ENTHALPY.....talk about taking a pass.

I gave you the hint as to the single most important parameter under which enthalpy is calculated, I even gave you the first letter (c) of the phrase of the most important parameter used in the calculation & you punted. A person experienced using enthalpy calculations would never have taken two days of contemplating to come up with CONSTANT PRESSURE, but you did, the reason being that you hadn't yet made it to WikiPedia to come up with something.


Benni just made an amazing admission as to his ignorance of thermodynamics. I have been waiting for him to admit it and now we have it in writing.

Benni does not know that enthalpy is not only defined for constant pressure, as he seems to think. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2015
Benni has now said:
Now that you've been enlightened, it should be self-evident why your ludicrous hypothesis of energy imbalance doesn't work. It's because the Earth's atmosphere does not have a CONSTANT PRESSURE, but I'll hand it to you Funny Farm Science clods to imagine there must be a way to come up with a nonlinear PDE to do it.


Benni is also the guy who seems to think that because he can solve a PDE that makes him knowledable but we now have evidence that he does not know what he is talking about. The idea that he thinks that because the atmosphere of the earth is not at constant pressure we cannot calculate the change in enthalpy. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I even gave him one of many ways to calculate it and he thinks that because it is a PDE it can't exist. He is wrong for both thermodynamics and mathematics. Benni, thanks for showing how dumb you really are. Anyone reading this will know you do not know what you are talking about.
leetennant
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 16, 2015
Instead of the above article, how about we just tender this entire comment thread? It can be called "Not just a river in Egypt".
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 17, 2015
MR166 FAILs AGAIN with
...Yet, if you ask them to provide a real number as to the amount of warming man's contribution to Co2 levels is responsible for they just give you a blank stare since they are unable to quantify man's contribution
You are as a LIAR, OR you haven't read posts here including mine, which makes you really STUPID or PROVES you're ONLY here to obfuscate

Quantified CO2 effect & other greenhouse gases
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Based upon experimentally proven (for many decades) heat transfer of Physics here
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Why MR166 is stupidly trying to LIE but, caught so VERY easily, Dill !

You MUST be a complete utter idiot redneck with NO credibility, you learned NIL !

MR166 ask stupid question
If you want to have even more fun ask them to prove how a 1 or 2 degree temperature rise will affect man's survival
Doh, Earth NOT homogenous !
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 17, 2015
Benni FAILs IGNORANTLY claims
..A person experienced using enthalpy calculations would never have taken two days of contemplating to come up with CONSTANT PRESSURE, but you did, the reason being that you hadn't yet made it to WikiPedia


PLEASE Benni, get an education in the basics of Heat, Enthalpy etc from
https://en.wikipe...iki/Heat

Read Benni, the specific facet in Physics re Enthalpy, its clear you're intellectually feeble re
https://en.wikipe...iki/Heat#Internal_energy_and_enthalpy

Which touches on issue of constant pressure but, you should KNOW Benni, as you go on about Differential Equations so often, you can use calculus & reform any number of heat transfer equations & enthalpy for atmospheric regions of *differing* pressures OR even better in a cylinder eg an engine where the pressure changes often etc

Prove your skills Benni, solve:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2015
@MM, Thermo:

It's been up to you guys to prove your skills in proving "energy imbalance" via use of the Enthalpy equation, you're the ones making the claim that it can be done. You're simply challenging me to prove the hypotheses is not just more Funny Farm Science. The fact you two can't come up with a cogent scientific parameter based in the parameters for Enthalpy calculations only makes it all the more self-evident how meagerly thin your education in science is.

There is 50 miles of depth to Earth's atmosphere. A mere change of just 1000 feet of elevation creates huge gradient changes in pressure in addition to temperature, in addition to the tremendous jet streams constantly churning up those atmospheric gradients. But given all these extremes of "constantly changing pressure gradients" , you Funny Farm Science clods imagine you can calculate/measure atmospheric enthalpy via which you an prove AGW.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2015
.........yeah VietVet & Greeno & the 1 Stars........we already know what your math skills are, grade school.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2015
Benni says:
There is 50 miles of depth to Earth's atmosphere. A mere change of just 1000 feet of elevation creates huge gradient changes in pressure in addition to temperature, in addition to the tremendous jet streams constantly churning up those atmospheric gradients. But given all these extremes of "constantly changing pressure gradients" , you Funny Farm Science clods imagine you can calculate/measure atmospheric enthalpy via which you an prove AGW.


So, you are saying that we cannot calculate/measure atmospheric or oceanic enthalpy because the pressure changes. I have already given you one formula for making that calculation (above). What thermo books do you have at home so I can find you the page. I have a dozen or so books here and will possibly be able to find it for you. Just give me the name of your thermo books and authors.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2015
.........yeah VietVet & Greeno & the 1 Stars


I already told you what my level of math was - no shame in never having taken a calculus class - one of the things on my to do list.

The one stars are for the complete ignorance of your commenting. Berating people because you have taken more math classes than they have is the tactic of a child. Why not grow up - address the issues you can address - and keep the childishness to yourself. Until then - one thing I can do is give you a one star.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (22) Jun 17, 2015
I already told you what my level of math was - no shame in never having taken a calculus class - one of the things on my to do list.


Bennie-Skippy can not do the calculus stuffs either. At least you put it on your to do list. He thinks he'll keep on getting by with Ask-Yahoo-Your-Question. Like he did on this one,

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Ain't that really shocking? As much as complains about people who snip and glue and read the wiki-Skippy stuffs I mean. Here is where he stole that little gem from,,,

https://answers.y...9AAPuFyU
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 17, 2015
Graduate school does require a certain level of maturity.

I imagine converting it to a rewarding career does too.

The immature level of your posts (constant personal attacks on people - rather than looking at the issues)

I'm sorry that you interpret the presentation of items that show that there is not enough evidence of AGW to create economic chaos as a personal attack.

You never should have claimed to have gotten a Master's in Counseling. Your emotion belies the assertion. Every time your emotion gets the better of you, you'll be reminded of how you should behave if what you claim to be is true.

Let us know how it works out.

Nothing to work out; I'll just create a real-life persona that I can use in internet anonymity. uh, no...I won't.

"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." Richard Feynman

denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 17, 2015
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

'the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago' and that 'the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.' - Barack Obama

greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2015
denglish
I'm sorry that you interpret the presentation of items that show that there is not enough evidence of AGW to create economic chaos as a personal attack.


Not the point denglish. The point is going after people on a personal level. I made the stupid mistake of mentioning that I have a masters degree - and instead of talking about the issues - you go after me personally - over and over - calling me a liar. Well - whether I have a masters degree or not - is irrelevant to the topics on this board. I mentioned it in passing - as the subject I was addressing (the correlation between religious fundamentalis, and low IQ) - was something that I learned in my stats class. You are correct - I should never have exposed myself to people like you on the internet - lesson learned. Suggesting that counselors - are never emotional - is pretty bizarre. Counselors can be a pretty messed up group of people - I know a few. They would never claim to be emotionally stable.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 17, 2015
going after people on a personal level

You asked for it.

I made the stupid mistake of mentioning that I have a masters degree

You don't. The emotion you show in your posts belies your assertion.

whether I have a masters degree or not - is irrelevant to the topics on this board.

Unless you're trying to achieve forum credibility by claiming it, which was your (failed) intention.

I was addressing (the correlation between religious fundamentalis, and low IQ)

Community Counselors are taught to have disparaging pre-conceptions before actual engagement? Besides, what kind of crack-pots actually brush entire classes of people with broad strokes like that? I'll tell you: agenda driven liberals. Your false education becomes even more ridiculous.

They would never claim to be emotionally stable.

A clear argument is never emotional. You should have learned that in school.

denglish
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 17, 2015
The point still stands: AGW is not proven to the extent that it justifies bureaucrats creating moral and economic ruin.

The arguments above do not help the case of AGW at all.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Jun 17, 2015
I already told you what my level of math was - no shame in never having taken a calculus class - one of the things on my to do list.

The one stars are for the complete ignorance of your commenting. Berating people because you have taken more math classes than they have is the tactic of a child. Why not grow up - address the issues you can address - and keep the childishness to yourself. Until then - one thing I can do is give you a one star.
...........and I don't give you any stars because those zero stars exemplify my opinion not only of your mathematical proficiency but my opinion of your comprehension of the meticulous nature of the kinds of sciences I deal with everyday in my job.

You see Greeno, when you have never engaged yourself in the highest levels of scientific skills like I have, and then you have the gall to align your voting with the likes of Stumpy & gang. Now, am I to assume "birds of a feather always flock together'? Or are your feathers unique?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2015
The point still stands: AGW is not proven to the extent that it justifies bureaucrats creating moral and economic ruin.

The arguments above do not help the case of AGW at all.


Deng has confounded two myths into an answer.

First, Deng, you need to show how response to AGW would "create moral and economic ruin." This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence.

Second, Deng, you say that: "AGW is not proven to the extent that it justifies..." this statement implies that AGW is proven to some extent, just not enough to "justify" something in your mind. Is that a real reflection of your view in that AGW is proven, just not to the extent you consider actionable?

So, combining those statements you have not shown that action would cause ruin and you have not told us how much evidence you need to consider AGW actionable. Would you care to elaborate?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2015
Benni says:
You see Greeno, when you have never engaged yourself in the highest levels of scientific skills like I have, and then you have the gall to align your voting with the likes of Stumpy & gang. Now, am I to assume "birds of a feather always flock together'? Or are your feathers unique?


Now that you have shown us that you do not have any skill in thermodynamics by your blatantly incorrect assertion that one cannot calculate enthalpy for systems without constant pressure. That is as wrong as you can get and reflects someone who doesn't even know how wrong they are. You also have shown your math skills are well below average for a typical engineer or scientist. They would not balk at integrating the equation I gave you above but you can't even see how easy it is.

Do you want me to walk you through your epic failure to show you how this works or have you finally purchased a thermodynamics book to learn from?
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 17, 2015
First, Deng, you need to show how response to AGW would "create moral and economic ruin." This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence.

Not would, is. California AB32 is Exhibit A.

Is that a real reflection of your view in that AGW is proven, just not to the extent you consider actionable?

No. Nothing should be ruled out, but humanity is innocent until guilt is proven without any reasonable doubt.

Would you care to elaborate?

Carbon laws both real and proposed are the ruin. It gets worse when the World Govt leaders expose their intentions. Kofi Anan, "let them eat insects" is a great one, as are some of the quotes I have referenced above.

People with much more expertise than I are saying that there are problems with the AGW calculations. We observe that reality is not matching predictions. The bureaucrats are taxing like mad but not engaging in carbon reduction personally. Climate Gate. Now the pope is in on it. Something stinks
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2015
Now that you have shown us that you do not have any skill in thermodynamics by your blatantly incorrect assertion that one cannot calculate enthalpy for systems without constant pressure. That is as wrong as you can get and reflects someone who doesn't even know how wrong they are. You also have shown your math skills are well below average for a typical engineer or scientist. They would not balk at integrating the equation I gave you above but you can't even see how easy it is.

Do you want me to walk you through your epic failure to show you how this works or have you finally purchased a thermodynamics book to learn from?


Then present your vaunted mathematical analyses proving AGW Enthalpy is the cause of a so-called "energy imbalance".
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2015
Unless you're trying to achieve forum credibility by claiming it, which was your (failed) intention.
No denglish - that was not my intention. It was an off the cuff remark - that did support the idea that I knew a bit about the specific topic I was referencing - but I actually don't spend time worrying about 'credibility' - I try to exchange ideas - but understand that this is all anonymous - so I may be talking to an 8 year old crazy person - who is just having fun. Credibility seems to be something you spend time discussing - and for my money - your constant attacking people on a personal basis - would seem very immature - and a good way to develop credibility - if that is your concern.
Community Counselors are taught to have disparaging pre-conceptions before actual engagement?
Understanding factual correlations is taught in a statistics class - which is part of the field of pschology,
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2015
denglish
You asked for it.


Pretty childish in my view.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 17, 2015
Understanding factual correlations is taught in a statistics class - which is part of the field of pschology

Yes, because having pre-conceived notions are essential for communicating effectively!

Don't double-down on ridiculous. You're embarrassing yourself.

your constant attacking people on a personal basis

Like I said, as long as you're emotional, I'm going to remind you that intelligent conversation and emotion don't mix. As a highly trained communicator, you should know this!

Pretty childish in my view.

Agreed. I gotta admit, I cringed for you when you did it. It got even worse when you claimed to have not enough credits for the grad degree, but got the post-grad. You could cut yourself loose by admitting it was a lie; I'd have more respect for you. I can understand the fear in that though, the others would eviscerate you.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2015
"Like I said, as long as you're emotional, . . "
-------------------------------------

Sorry, but that semantic trick does not work. Face the issue, Toots.

" I'd have more respect for you, . . "

You are nobody, the pseudonym of an anonymous character on "them internets" with no credibility at all.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2015
Benni added:
Then present your vaunted mathematical analyses proving AGW Enthalpy is the cause of a so-called "energy imbalance".


The energy imbalance (due to AGW) is the cause of an enthalpy increase, not the other way around.

I will start on the tutorial on enthalpy later tonight. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2015
denglish
It got even worse when you claimed to have not enough credits for the grad degree, but got the post-grad. You could cut yourself loose by admitting it was a lie.


Good - for my part we can now wrap up your childishness. You have just told a blatant lie. I claimed - as is the truth - that I studied Community Counseling (a graduate program) at University of Central Oklahoma. I did not complete that program (dropped out a couple of classes before completion) - but later attended Langston University - where many of my hours transferred - and I graduated with a masters degree in Rehabilitation Counselling. I currently work as a sign language interpreter. Now if you want - please go back and verify that information - whch will prove you to be a liar. If you can't be bothered - I wouldn't - you just need to knock of the childish personal bullshit. Everything I have said is consistent - and accurate - prove otherwise - or get lost.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2015
Deng said:
Carbon laws both real and proposed are the ruin. It gets worse when the World Govt leaders expose their intentions. Kofi Anan, "let them eat insects" is a great one, as are some of the quotes I have referenced above.


Can you please point us to the source that shows that Kofi Anan said: "let them eat insects."

What I have found is the Guardian article where he talked about the nutritional value and reduced resources needed for protein from insects.

http://www.thegua...sceptics

That is a technical issue raised within the article that does not mention your quote. It appears he really didn't say: "let them eat insects." Please point out to us where he says that.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2015
Benni added: Then present your vaunted mathematical analyses proving AGW Enthalpy is the cause of a so-called "energy imbalance".


The energy imbalance (due to AGW) is the cause of an enthalpy increase, not the other way around
Errant correction of terminology, it is succinctly & correctly stated as AGW Enthalpy is the cause of "energy imbalance", you simply used a longer sequence of words to say the same thing. I trust your math won't contain similar inconsequential gibberish.

I will start on the tutorial on enthalpy later tonight. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue.

Oh, you're welcome. By the way, you're already off to a bad start with that piece errant correction above, bad attitude right off the bat eh Thermo?

denglish
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 17, 2015
"Like I said, as long as you're emotional, . . "
-------------------------------------

Sorry, but that semantic trick does not work. Face the issue, Toots.

" I'd have more respect for you, . . "

You are nobody, the pseudonym of an anonymous character on "them internets" with no credibility at all.

Right. So why are you and him trying to garner credibility with false real-life personas?

Is your credibility more valuable than mine because I won't demean myself as thoroughly as you will?
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2015
prove otherwise - or get lost.

You prove you are not a trained communicator by the content of your posts. You're flat out-lying in order to gain internet credibility. Don't feel bad...all your friends are doing it too.

Can you please point us to the source that shows that Kofi Anan said: "let them eat insects."

You found the right one:

"For example, raising insects as an animal protein source. Insects have a very good conversion rate from feed to meat. They make up part of the diet of two billion people and are commonly eaten in many parts of the world. Eating insects is good for the environment and balanced diets."

One can find many lead-ups to "let them eat insects" in that passage. He bemoans the livestock industry, and how it contributes to human-caused greenhouse gas, the rising middle class.

"We cannot continue the way we are producing and consuming meat. "

Guilt trip +1 ...insect diet pending.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2015
You're flat out-lying in order to gain internet credibility.


Wow denglish - you are like a dog with a bone. You lied - I called you on that lie - and of course you have no support for that lie. When challenged to supply the evidence - you are unable. As to what you can infer from the content of my posts - it is of course irrelevant - and speculative. Whether I have or have not a degree - is of no relevance to most of the mature posters on this board. I sense that most judge the merit of comments - by the content of the comment. So why don't you drop it - recognize that you are caught in a lie - and trying to make a big deal about something pretty irrelevant.

And the idea that I could not have studied counselling - because I tend to get emotional - is just plain stupid.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2015
And the idea that I could not have studied counselling - because I tend to get emotional - is just plain stupid.


You're reaching and reeling. There is no way that the content of your posts come from a trained communicator. Seriously. Stop it.

gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2015
Stop screaming, denglish, . . you already lost.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2015
Deng responded with"
One can find many lead-ups to "let them eat insects" in that passage. He bemoans the livestock industry, and how it contributes to human-caused greenhouse gas, the rising middle class.

"We cannot continue the way we are producing and consuming meat. "

Guilt trip +1 ...insect diet pending.


So, this means that Kofi Anan did not say: "let them eat insects"

However, he did say: "Obviously, this should not go as far as governments telling people what to eat."

So, he did not say "let them eat insects" and he was explicit about his comments not being orders. Instead he was pointing out that many people use insects now for protein supplement. You have misrepresented him and you have now doubled down instead of just admitting this was a myth from Watts.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2015
You're reaching and reeling. There is no way that the content of your posts come from a trained communicator. Seriously. Stop it.


What ever denglish - once again you are moving the goal post. My comment was about your assertion that you know I could not have a degree in counselling - because I tend to get emotional. So why don't you stop it with the speculation about me. Stick to the facts. You
were caught in a lie - and just keep trying to move the goal posts. Judge posts by the issues they are discussing - and stop trying to beat people up on personaly issues like if they have a degree or not - to me it makes you look like quiet the bully. Again - show us the evidence - or go away. This crap about what you know about me - based on your reading of my comments is just childish.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
Benni said:
Errant correction of terminology, it is succinctly & correctly stated as AGW Enthalpy is the cause of "energy imbalance", you simply used a longer sequence of words to say the same thing. I trust your math won't contain similar inconsequential gibberish.


If you look above you can see that I said:
Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?


As I said:
The energy imbalance (due to AGW) is the cause of an enthalpy increase, not the other way around.


So, let's start the tutorial by a simple statement: "There is a radiant energy imbalance that is increased by the increase of human produced GHGs results in a decrease in the IR radiation leaving the Earth. The decrease in IR radiation leaving the Earth is the predominant cause of the increase in enthalpy of the materials and fluids the Earth is made of." Let me know if that is now clear.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
For this tutorial I would like to use a readily available PDF thermo book so we can all refer to the same text. The book is:

http://www2.chem....rmobook/

I will also try to use Kelvins for the temperature and MPa for pressure. Please remind me if I start drifting on units.

Does anyone have any particular issues you would like to see me cover other than enthalpy? This might take me a while because there is a lot to cover.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2015
The decrease in IR radiation leaving the Earth

What decrease?
There is no reason for any decrease based upon the IR transmission windows from 8-12 microns.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2015
thermodynamics with immense patience offered
For this tutorial I would like to use a readily available PDF thermo book so we can all refer to the same text. The book is:
http://www2.chem....rmobook/
Hats off to you :-)
Wow, a great link, no paywall & even has hyperlink options, thanks for the link, great opportunity to brush up on the essential Physics, will be keen to address details on
https://en.wikipe...transfer

As central to the issue re any greenhouse gas. I don't have the experimental background as yet re qualifying the equation in practical terms but, recently have the capital but, of course for efficiency keen to review prios experimental evidence, especially
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Fantastic progress opportunity for Water_Prophet & others unlucky to miss high school to understand how to credibly present viable Scientific hypotheses to be taken seriously, thanks :-)
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2015
..with no credibility at all.
..Stop screaming, . . you already lost.
credibility ~= creed
It's useless to resist to AGW creed and their apostles; deniers give up and join to believers.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 18, 2015
ryggesogn2 says
There is no reason for any decrease based upon the IR transmission windows from 8-12 microns
Of course your blurt is sadly wrong !

Ah I see your problem ryggesogn2, you have readily been influenced by dumb propaganda & been diverted from essentials of your university education in a Physics degree of the irrefutable FACT greenhouse gases such as CO2 re-direct some of their IR excitation back to ground, thus REDUCEing IR emissions as thermodynamics confirmed.

Details for you ryggesogn2 on this link, useful reminder of your Physics degree of course !
https://en.wikipe...transfer

And of course a short form simplified but, practical extension of the equation is
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Glad your Physics degree of a few years ago ryggesogn2, unlike many on Phys.org allows you to understand & wilfully articulatedetails & confirm the essentials of experimentally verified Physics :-)

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 18, 2015
WillieWard with the very BEST he could do whilst he still grows
credibility ~= creed
It's useless to resist to AGW creed and their apostles; deniers give up and join to believer.
Willieward forgets its NOT about belief its about Science & "Balance of probabilities".

It does seem to WillieWard just like brain surgery/rocket science, so specialized & hard for him as he desperately needs a high school education in Physics re
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

& of course the irrefutable experimentally proven heat transfer Physics which of course he's verified
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Willieward can of course offer a sound mathematical basis as to why all these are so easy to prove, just takes an interest in Physics & smart use of google scholar :-)

Over to you Willieward, lets start with Evidence that can reverse >100yrs of Physics development, ie of the type that we use daily in industry & that even boils your kettle so well ?
denglish
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2015
You have misrepresented him and you have now doubled down instead of just admitting this was a myth from Watts.

And that's where the controversy lies (I don't need anyone to tell me what I read, e.g. Watts; it is a convenient repository, nothing else).

I read a desire to fundamentally change industrialized nations (coupled with the pope's message of late this seems even more reasonable) for the worse, or at least by backwards steps (removing a fundamental food source).

Evidently, you read something else. I'm not sure what.

My point remains: Observations have not supported theories. There is a clear intent to cripple economies and modern sources of energy (regardless of these sources being the only viable option at the moment). The political motive is captured in writings, interviews, and stolen communiques. As companies leave the most punitive US States, the dependent class grows.

We all want a clean Earth, but something stinks in the AGW crowd.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 18, 2015
Stop screaming, denglish, . . you already lost.

Still carrying on? Relax.

This crap about what you know about me - based on your reading of my comments is just childish.

So you should not be known by your actions. Interesting. You never should have spouted that crap about being a trained communicator. Its very clear that you are not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2015
You are nobody
-and you are the somebody who thinks he knows more about batteries than Elon musk, but didn't know Elon's commercial unit preorders were just as impressive as his residential preorders.

And you STILL think you know more than he does don't you?
the pseudonym of an anonymous character on "them internets" with no credibility at all
-as are most of the people who brainlessly uprate your empty one-line cheerleader posts.

But this is how thugdom operates.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
So you should not be known by your actions.


On an anonymous internet forum - I think it makes sense to stick with content of the information. You know nothing about me. I may be a 7 year old kid, or a 100 year old psych patient - locked in a psych hospital in Moscow. So your need to deflect from the issues - and go after people on a personal level - is ignorant. You also show a great lack of understanding. I told you that I was a sign language interpreter, and that I have taken a number of business communication classes. So now you can read my posts - and know that I am a liar. That is stupid. Perhaps I am tired. Perhaps I am at work and distracted. Perhaps I did not pay attention in class. What is really interesting is how you have lied. I pointed out your lie - and you just keep right on attacking me personally - without putting your tale between your legs - and shutting up. Identifying a lie does not take some mythical ability to infer stuff....
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2015
The decrease in IR radiation leaving the Earth

What decrease?
There is no reason for any decrease based upon the IR transmission windows from 8-12 microns.


Rygg: This looks like a great place to start. Can you please expand on the concept you have just outlined in this post? What does the IR transmission window at 8 - 12 microns have to do with trapping of IR by the atmosphere? Can you please explain your logic or references so I can address the physics?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2015
Gang: Here is a link for a PDF of a heat transfer book. Once again, this should help us communicate about specific issues.

http://web.mit.ed...v131.pdf

This one is from MIT.

I have not read or used either of these textbooks that I have found on the web. We may need some supplemental information to address specifics.

Here is an example presentation with radiant heat transfer equations that we can refer to if we need to. Again, I just found this so we will have to see how it fits.

http://web.iitd.a...20-1.pdf

Here is another supplemental document:

http://webserver....ling.pdf

It will take me a while to get started on these and in the mean time Rygg can help us better understand his comment about the IR window.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
denglish
So you should not be known by your actions.


Follow up - yeah denglish - I think we do put ourselves out there when we comment on an internet forum - and of course people will judge us by what we post. So where does that leave you? On 2 occasions on this one thread - you have told outright lies. Thermo is right to point out that you quoted Anan as saying something - that he never said. You totally misrepresented what Anan was talking about. You also accused me of saying something that I never said - and side stepped when asked to provide any evidence. So yeah - I do think we are putting ourselves out there when we post.
denglish
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2015
Follow up - yeah denglish

Man, do I have some free rent in your head or what?!?! Relax.

Thermo is right to point out that you quoted Anan as saying something - that he never said.

Perhaps you missed my reply. Look above. I almost said that I would be interested in your analysis of Anan's quote, the other quotes I provided, or the content of the stolen messages, but I am not confident in your ability to decipher written word intellectually (rather than emotionally, which produces nothing that can be built on), and also know that you will toe the AGW line; creating another impasse that forum argument will not solve.

I am alarmed that we do not appear to have learned from history. Many times...evil or mis-deeds have been announced publicly, or have been discovered, prior to their execution; One side joining, doing nothing, or allowing it, and another side being extremely worried re: the outcome. Which side will win this time?

ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2015
What does the IR transmission window at 8 - 12 microns have to do with trapping of IR by the atmosphere?


It has nothing to do with trapping heat.

Everything to do with heat radiating from the earth.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
denglish
I almost said that I would be interested in your analysis of Anan's quote


Except that the point being made is that you did not quote him. Instead you misquoted him - which is dishonest. So go on talking about internet credibility.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2015
What does the IR transmission window at 8 - 12 microns have to do with trapping of IR by the atmosphere?


It has nothing to do with trapping heat.

Everything to do with heat radiating from the earth.


Rygg brings up a common point about the "IR window."

http://coolcosmos...ows.html

The IR window is an area of the spectrum that has little absorbance by common gases and serves as a "window" for astronomy. However, what is not commonly addressed is the fact that bands and windows are approximations for what is really taking place (line emission and absorbance). The lines are quantum mechanical features and are only approximated by bands.

The other issue is what the emissions from the Earth look like and how they correspond to the window. What I will do is look for on-line references that we can share because we can't embed graphics in the comments section.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
I would like those who are following this to take a look at the figure for black body emissions. This is a reference to the comment by Rygg about what happens between 8 - 12 um.

http://www.acs.or...nce.html

This ACS site is a good one for specifics and this figure is useful. Note that the ordinate is a log scale. That figure shows emissions from the sun (left curve) and the Earth (right curve). This figure shows emissions from the surface of the Sun and the Earth.

Do not look for more in this figure than an idea of the magnitude and wavelengths. Neither the Sun nor the Earth are perfect black bodies. However, making the calculation for the surfaces is approximately correct. Planck's law is described here:

https://en.wikipe...ck's_law

I use Mathematica to calculate the specifics of Planck's law, but we can use the figure from ACS to get an idea of what they look like.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2015
ryggesogn2 claims
It has nothing to do with trapping heat
Beg pardon, where did you get your physics from, which university did you graduate in Physics from please ?

What do you understand as heat and its relationship to molecular vibrational states ?

ryggesogn2 added
Everything to do with heat radiating from the earth
Which IS being interfered with by greenhouse gases, ie
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

and
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

and
https://en.wikipe...transfer

and the textbook links offered with great patience by thermodynamics.

Is ryggesogn2 denying Physics ?

This has been addressed with you many months ago when you stated you were a uni Physics graduate, lets hope it wasn't a failed attempt of "Appeal to Authority" ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2015
thermodynamics offered
Rygg brings up a common point about the "IR window."
http://coolcosmos...ows.html
A very nice link indeed thanks & the details of which easily confirmed by IR astronomers world-wide :-)
This also from the satellite service RSS at various altitudes...
http://images.rem...ies.html

thermodynamics added
The IR window is an area of the spectrum that has little absorbance by common gases and serves as a "window" for astronomy
Many anti AGW have not appreciate this at all. Really appreciate your patience in pursuing this & probably not lost in terms of irony on this particular thread "countering science denial"...

Thanks also for the Physics book links, great chance to refresh 30+ yr old in that area, brilliant :-)
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
If you want to feel the IR window, stand out in the middle of a desert on a clear night.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Jun 19, 2015
ryggesogn2 FAILs in his claim
If you want to feel the IR window, stand out in the middle of a desert on a clear night
Beg pardon ?
Do you imagine a human body is a precise enough & suitable instrument for narrow IR wavelengths ?
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

How can the human body ryggesogn2 measure the fractions of a degree per surface area AND for specific IR wavelengths of a typical human & extrapolate to a column of atmosphere of several thousand meters ?

Get several hundred people together ryggesogn2 under those conditions ryggesogn2, will they all agree as per just how much precise IR is radiated AND absorbed AND re-radiated along the entire path length all the way up to the stratosphere ?

ryggesogn2, where did you get a Physics degree which teaches humans are objective instruments ?

ryggesogn2, what have you been smoking ?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
I am going to make an observation about the ACS figure showing the emission from the Sun as well as an approximate emission from the Earth.

http://www.acs.or...nce.html

If you noticed, the right hand side of that figure is for a black body at 250 K. However we know the average temperature of the Earth is about 14.6 C:

https://www2.ucar...ture-now

Or about 287.84 K. Why does the figure show about 250 K instead of 287.84 K?

Also, note they have "about" 250 K. I actually got about 255 K to get the 240 W/m^2 they got.

So, why are they using 250 K?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2015
" departure from normal"

What is normal?

Is 'normal' mean/median of daily high/lows or means/median of hourly temperatures over years or .....?
And what is the geographic distribution of each mean/median and it is well documented ground temperature stations have changed or had asphalt and buildings built near them.
The ONLY accurate way to measure the emissivity and radiance of the earth is with a calibrated satellite like CLARREO. But there is no funding. Maybe they don't really want to know?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
" departure from normal"

What is normal?

Is 'normal' mean/median of daily high/lows or means/median of hourly temperatures over years or .....?
And what is the geographic distribution of each mean/median and it is well documented ground temperature stations have changed or had asphalt and buildings built near them.
The ONLY accurate way to measure the emissivity and radiance of the earth is with a calibrated satellite like CLARREO. But there is no funding. Maybe they don't really want to know?


Rygg: So, why are they using 250 K?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2015
How should I know?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
How should I know?


Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2015
How should I know?


Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

Are you really asking or waiting to lecture?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
How should I know?


Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

Are you really asking or waiting to lecture?


I am asking anyone who is following this to see if anyone wants to comment before I answer this part of it. I know MM and some others are following and I wanted to give anyone who wanted it, a chance to answer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2015
And, once again, stand outside in a desert at night if you want to feel the IR windows.

BTW, the 250K has really nothing to do with the earth except for the size.
The difference you want to attribute to 'greenhouse gases' still does not address the IR windows.
The generalizations gloss over the IR windows, here, but you all get real excited about the IR absolution bands from CO2 at 4.2 and 15 microns.
But if you are designing an IR satellite or missile that needs to see through the atmosphere, you find out that 3-5 um is a good MWIR band, with a CO2 notch filter and 8-12 is a good band for LWIR.
MWIR peaks around the temp of a jet engine, great for a air to air missile like AIM-9X while 10 um is the peak emission for a BB ~300K and a 8-9 um for ~400K, the temperature of a tank engine for an air to ground IR missile.
Human skin has an emissivity~.95 in the LWIR so standing outside at night in a dry desert, you feel the heat radiating quickly from your body.
barakn
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2015
Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

250 K corresponds to the air temperature about 2/3 of the way through the troposphere, above the kind of low-level clouds that can efficiently trap infrared. http://cimss.ssec...=gsc_b05
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2015
Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

250 K corresponds to the air temperature about 2/3 of the way through the troposphere, above the kind of low-level clouds that can efficiently trap infrared. http://cimss.ssec...=gsc_b05

That's not it.
It's the temperature of an earth sized sphere with an emissivity of 1 at 1 au.
barakn
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2015
Also, atmospheric gases preferentially absorb infrared at wavelengths longer than 12500 nm, making the outgoing radiation look cooler than 250 K at those wavelengths whereas between 12500 nm and 8000 nm it more closely matches the unattenuated 280 K. 250 K is a crude average. http://acmg.seas....ml#41654
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

250 K corresponds to the air temperature about 2/3 of the way through the troposphere, above the kind of low-level clouds that can efficiently trap infrared. http://cimss.ssec...=gsc_b05


That is about it. Great job. Yes, the effective radiation temperature is around 250 K (or more correctly, around 240 W/m^2) as an average for the atmosphere on an annual basis.

https://en.wikipe...y_budget
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
Anyone else with an idea of why they are using 250 K?

250 K corresponds to the air temperature about 2/3 of the way through the troposphere, above the kind of low-level clouds that can efficiently trap infrared. http://cimss.ssec...=gsc_b05

That's not it.
It's the temperature of an earth sized sphere with an emissivity of 1 at 1 au.


Rygg: Do you have a reference for this? My reasoning and approximations go along with Barakn's.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
Just as a note, the reference that Barakn cited shows an effective earth temperature of 255 K which is exactly what I got to produce the 240 W/m^2.

That is a great reference and has more chapters if anyone is interested.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2015
http://burro.astr...emp.html

Planet size does not matter but its emissivity does.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/equiltemp.html

Planet size does not matter but its emissivity does.


Another good reference. Note how it also mentions 255 K as the equilibrium temperature. So, why are the numbers so wrong when they have albedo and distance?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
Anyone following this should be able to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to make the same calculation I did to determine the 240 W/m^2 leaving a black body at 255 K:

https://en.wikipe...mann_law

http://hyperphysi...fan.html

Equation 1.28 of the Heat transfer book by Lienehard above.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2015
One more thing to go over at this point. You can see that the Stefan-Boltzmann law as given in equation 1.28 is not frequency dependent. What it does is give you a total emission characteristic because equation 1.27 is integrated over any frequency/wavelength range. If you want to understand emissions over wavelength ranges for "black bodies" you can use equation 1.27 and integrate over the wavelength range you want to use.

Another useful expression is given in equation 1.29. The equation known as the Wien displacement law shows the peak wavelength for a given temperature of a black body. This can be a useful equation when you want to determine where the peak output power wavelength is for a given temperature. As an example, for the emission curve of the 255 K earth, the peak is at 11,364 nm. Give it a try.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2015
If we integrate equation 1.27 between two wavelengths (lambda1 and lambda2) we can calculate the amount of power radiated between those two wavelengths.. This lets us get an idea of the fraction of power from a source that falls within specific bands.

Let me start this part of the exercise with the amount of power that is emitted at wavelengths around the 4,600 nm absorption peak for CO2. For instance, you can see in the absorption figure in:

https://en.wikipe...y_budget

That there is an absorption peak for CO2 that goes from about 4,000 nm to about 4,700 nm. That is a peak without much in the way of water vapor absorption. This is, sometimes, cited as an important IR absorption band. What fraction of the total power from a 255 K source happens in this range. My calculations show about about 1/10000000 of the total power (almost nothing). So, that band is not much of the IR output from the Earth.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
For those of you who want to look at an integrated spectral distribution over wavelength or frequency, the way I find easiest is to integrate Planck's law over the solid angle for emission (picking up a 2 pi factor).

https://en.wikipe...ck's_law

I didn't find this in the Harvard heat transfer text, probably because text is at an introductory level. If you have any problems with this step let me know and I will try to find a more advanced reference (I have a couple of Radiation heat transfer books that have the steps but they are not available on-line).
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2015
ryggesogn2 offered
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/equiltemp.html
Planet size does not matter but its emissivity does
Indeed, did ryggesogn2 not read his own (short) link, especially end, stating "Note the dependencies...", finishes "Something's wrong!"

How can it be ryggesogn2, what could possibly be the key Physics ?

Maybe ryggesogn2 can explain what he claims as to the point he's attempting to make ?

Is ryggesogn2 skilled in Physics re his claimed degree as he is in Science Communication ?

@thermodynamics
On major project, wish I had more time, no desire to needlessly divert from essential maths but, the overall key appears for (uneducated) deniers is evidence which confirms
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Example
http://images.rem...ies.html

However, what's pointedly definitive in addition to (what may be interpreted as abstract) maths as it appears many haven't that education or patience ?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
MM said:


@thermodynamics
On major project, wish I had more time, no desire to needlessly divert from essential maths but, the overall key appears for (uneducated) deniers is evidence which confirms
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

However, what's pointedly definitive in addition to (what may be interpreted as abstract) maths as it appears many haven't that education or patience ?


Those are good observations and I hope to eventually get to them. However, for right now I just want to show how important the interaction of CO2 is with IR. To do that this figure (in your citation) is important:

https://upload.wi...hers.png

Please note the IR "water vapor window" from about 8 - 18 um in the figure. Note how CO2 starts closing the window at about 12 um. More later.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2015
MM and anyone else following this blog, this might take a while. I am trying to put together exercises that let anyone chime in with their technical approaches.

What I am trying to do is find references and data that people download and then use to test the suggested processes.

As a step along that path I have located a great cite.

http://hitran.org/

The HITRAN software is free and is used by most of the world to understand interactions between photons and molecules. They have built in Python API bindings and they you can just downloaded. I am going through the documentation and it will be able to help make the cases in this thread.

You can also use it on-line (no need to have Python going). I'm going to try to pick it up using the Mathematica API.

Let me know who wants to go down this rabbit hole with me.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2015
Let me explain why I am elated at HITRAN being interactive on the web. We constantly see arguments about the various "absorption bands" for water vapor and CO2 and how they "interfere" with each other. We also see claims about how a gas with only 400 ppm in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate. Both of these assumptions are related in that we base our assumptions on the world around us (macroscopic scale) when the interaction of photons and molecules is quantum mechanical in nature (microscopic scale). What HITRAN does is let us look at the "lines" that make up the bands for the molecules that float around in the atmosphere. Not only that, but it also lets us look at "line broadening" and interference. Those who have said that CO2 is "insignificant" should follow this to see where they went wrong. Anyone who finds any errors along the line, please feel free to help me out.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2015
Just to let anyone who is watching this know, I have not forgotten where I am going with this. I have been looking at the new HAPI interface in Python to try to use the new tools available to apply the HITRAN database. I have downloaded the Anaconda 2 interface and I have succeeded in getting the HAPI interface working. I started by using Anaconda 3.x and found out it does not work with the HAPI interface. So, I used the Anaconda 2.x system instead. It seems to work well. However, now I am in the process of learning to use the interface. This will probably be like watching grass grow, but it seems to me to be an important new tool so I will let you know as I work my way through this. The Anaconda download can be found at:

http://continuum.io/downloads

It is a free interpreter and seems to be a stable version.
docile
Jul 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.