Remember me
▼ Content

nationalgeographic on climate change



Page 1 of 212>
nationalgeographic on climate change06-04-2017 21:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
This post on another thread was in a response to an implication that there was no evidence that climate change is allready affecting things I think if people want to discuss it it deserves its own thread.

Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.


All this is happening, those who can read will notice Antarctic sea ice is not mentioned however if you want to ignore where the ice is obseved to be melting and talk about Antarctic sea ice that for some reason please familiarize yourself with;
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm the arguments in this link.

Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.


I haven't counted them myself Bill Fraser did so if you want to accuse someone of lying its him not me but knowing what little I know about Adélie penguins it seems probable.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2462/climate-change-may-shrink-adelie-penguin-range-by-end-of-century/

The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.


All this seems true from what I know.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.


Pine bark beetles are well studied and the effects are well known.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bark-beetles-aided-by-climate-change-are-devastating-us-pine-forests/2011/11/08/gIQA0B0CWO_story.html?utm_term=.123b8c48a69a

I think my post stands up to scrutiny.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 19:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
This post on another thread was in a response to an implication that there was no evidence that climate change is allready affecting things I think if people want to discuss it it deserves its own thread.

Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.


All this is happening, those who can read will notice Antarctic sea ice is not mentioned however if you want to ignore where the ice is obseved to be melting and talk about Antarctic sea ice that for some reason please familiarize yourself with;
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm the arguments in this link.

Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.


I haven't counted them myself Bill Fraser did so if you want to accuse someone of lying its him not me but knowing what little I know about Adélie penguins it seems probable.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2462/climate-change-may-shrink-adelie-penguin-range-by-end-of-century/

The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.


All this seems true from what I know.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.


Pine bark beetles are well studied and the effects are well known.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bark-beetles-aided-by-climate-change-are-devastating-us-pine-forests/2011/11/08/gIQA0B0CWO_story.html?utm_term=.123b8c48a69a

I think my post stands up to scrutiny.


National Geographic has become nothing more than a rag with article authors more than willing to give opinions as "scientific fact". I ceased my subscription long ago and when I find one in a doctor's office while I'm waiting and peruse it I see that if anything it has gotten worse.

I take Smithsonian and even that is showing the damaging effects of stupid people reporting fake news. Just because it has excellent articles by experts in their field does not forgive them from writing lies about other things.
25-04-2017 19:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Again thanks for bumping the thread but people just have to look it up if they want to know about it, no need to take your word on things.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 19:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Yea Spot, I agree with you, all I gotta do is look it up. Now I need a wash.

You want to go another round on the dumb Penguins? Ok.

What they didn't bother to do was tell you about the other 2 species. One is growing in population and the other is skyrocketing in population.

And I'm dishonest.....


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:

25-04-2017 20:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Chinstrap, Gentoo, Adelie its all the same. A species that has been around since long before civilization is being supplanted by another no big deal.

I don't expect you to understand, you think ignorance is a virtue. Other people however can look stuff up.
25-04-2017 20:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Ok, here goes again;

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1, Be scary.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

3, Have this mechanism backed by some sort of science.

and

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

Good luck, nobody has managed it so far including posting this question of science forums.

Edited on 25-04-2017 20:20
25-04-2017 20:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.
25-04-2017 20:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
spot wrote:
Chinstrap, Gentoo, Adelie its all the same. A species that has been around since long before civilization is being supplanted by another no big deal.

Typical defeatist response. You'd blame yourself for the extinction of the dinosaur if you could....or do you? 2 Penguins species doing better and much better and one is not. Spot has his panties in a bunch.

I don't expect you to understand, you think ignorance is a virtue. Other people however can look stuff up.

I do not think ignorance is a virtue. What I find amazing is that even with my lack of a high school education, I can see right through the "science" lies. It is unbelievable how the "smartest" people are so stupid.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
25-04-2017 20:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Chinstrap, Gentoo, Adelie its all the same. A species that has been around since long before civilization is being supplanted by another no big deal.

Typical defeatist response. You'd blame yourself for the extinction of the dinosaur if you could....or do you? 2 Penguins species doing better and much better and one is not. Spot has his panties in a bunch.

I don't expect you to understand, you think ignorance is a virtue. Other people however can look stuff up.

I do not think ignorance is a virtue. What I find amazing is that even with my lack of a high school education, I can see right through the "science" lies. It is unbelievable how the "smartest" people are so stupid.


Its getting warmer because of us so blaming us seems logical.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 21:18
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Its getting warmer because of us so blaming us seems logical.


For hundreds of thousands of years temps have gone way up, and way down, and species have come and gone. So what is it that is logical?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 25-04-2017 21:21
25-04-2017 21:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.
Edited on 25-04-2017 21:39
25-04-2017 21:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 21:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 21:54
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Spot said,
I did not make the claims


So tired of that BS. If you post it, you don't deny it.... You own it. Typical chicken shit hit and run.
Edited on 25-04-2017 21:58
25-04-2017 21:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


Come on you can actully do it!

Can't you?????
26-04-2017 04:41
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.
Edited on 26-04-2017 04:43
26-04-2017 17:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.
26-04-2017 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-04-2017 21:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/
26-04-2017 21:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/ (Do you suppose this is the consensus our own True Believers want known?)
27-04-2017 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/


Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-04-2017 01:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/


Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.


Also the interior heat from the Earth is so slight compared to the input from the Sun that is effectively non-existent.
27-04-2017 02:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: ....even with my lack of a high school education, I can see right through the "science" lies.


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" has no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, but knows that oil,coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un propaganda PR poop is money oriented...... & that's all ya gots ta know.
27-04-2017 03:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/


Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.


Also the interior heat from the Earth is so slight compared to the input from the Sun that is effectively non-existent.


Quite true. It can safely be written off as insignificant. Just keep your feet out of the lava! That way you can save them for the Sun!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-04-2017 04:57
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/


Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.


First you say that CFC's are inert. Then you say that the chlorine in them is extremely reactive and will react with something else. So is it reactive or inert?
27-04-2017 13:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

Edited on 27-04-2017 13:49
27-04-2017 14:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.


I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-04-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


Well, it's perfectly clear why you tried to hide your answers via a PM.
27-04-2017 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.


No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.


I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.


Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.


You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.


This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?


I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/


Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.


First you say that CFC's are inert. Then you say that the chlorine in them is extremely reactive and will react with something else. So is it reactive or inert?


You are talking about two different substances as if they were one. They aren't. One is reactive, the other is not particularly reactive. It doesn't react with ozone.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-04-2017 10:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.


I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.


This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.
28-04-2017 16:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.


I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.


This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.


I am not addressing it to you, rather any third party that may be reading this,

Tim accuses me of being a fascist, Tim wants to lock scientists up for reporting what their instruments tell them if its contrary what he thinks is going on based his fantasy maths based on half arsed guesses.

Tim wants proof that the effects of global warming will be bad, I can't 'prove' what will happen in the future, I can show what people project;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim wants a mechanism I have explained the mechanism in simple terms, I have offered to privately go through it in as much detail as he requires. They teach the mechanism to secondary school kids. You would think he could look it up himself though.

http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 28-04-2017 16:51
28-04-2017 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.


I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.


This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.


I am not addressing it to you, rather any third party that may be reading this,

Tim accuses me of being a fascist, Tim wants to lock scientists up for reporting what their instruments tell them if its contrary what he thinks is going on based his fantasy maths based on half arsed guesses.

Tim wants proof that the effects of global warming will be bad, I can't 'prove' what will happen in the future, I can show what people project;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim wants a mechanism I have explained the mechanism in simple terms, I have offered to privately go through it in as much detail as he requires. They teach the mechanism to secondary school kids. You would think he could look it up himself though.

http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change


What are scientists instruments reporting?

NOAA uses ground stations with insufficient correction for urban growth: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/no%20slow%20down%20in%20global%20warming.jpg

Information taken directly from the satellites monitoring the same temperatures over the same time period: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

It's easy for you to make blank statements because you have to little knowledge and you have no intent of reading anything that could correct your religious beliefs.
28-04-2017 19:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.


So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.


I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.


Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.


This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.


I am not addressing it to you, rather any third party that may be reading this,

Tim accuses me of being a fascist, Tim wants to lock scientists up for reporting what their instruments tell them if its contrary what he thinks is going on based his fantasy maths based on half arsed guesses.

Tim wants proof that the effects of global warming will be bad, I can't 'prove' what will happen in the future, I can show what people project;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim wants a mechanism I have explained the mechanism in simple terms, I have offered to privately go through it in as much detail as he requires. They teach the mechanism to secondary school kids. You would think he could look it up himself though.

http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change


1, Liar. Clearly you deliberately misrepresent what I want to happen in terms of legal responsibility and penalties for anybody who is found to be deliberatley lying and calling it science.

2, Liar. I want scientists to have the legal duty to report what their instruments show. That they would also have the duty to report anybody who puts pressure on them to lie and call it science.

3, Liar. You understand that I do not want proof of anything. I want you to describe what it is you think is bad about global warming and why it is you think it will happen, the bad thing not the change in temperature, and then support it with some sort of science. Should be easy. That it is impossible says it all.

4,
Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'
Well, I will see if the things you bring up are reasonable. I will try to see any obvious holes in such mechanisms. That is how science works. It is even how all accademia works.

5, Liar.
Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.
Untill you post something that is a thing to deal with how can we possibly asses the cost of it?
Edited on 28-04-2017 19:12
28-04-2017 19:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
I provided links.



Edited on 28-04-2017 19:48
28-04-2017 20:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
I provided links.




The trouble is that we have posted hundreds of links and you have told us that you have the "consensus" - NOAA supported by the AMA and the American Horticulturalist Association and the like. ONE of the members in that "consensus" is THE BOYS CLUB.

This is your idea of truth in science.

And when we show that NOAA is incorrect you ignore it.
28-04-2017 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
spot wrote:
I provided links.


Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 28-04-2017 21:12
29-04-2017 00:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.


Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.


This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.

A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.
29-04-2017 00:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.


Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.


This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.

Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.
Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.

It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.

Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.

Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.

The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.

You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 29-04-2017 00:58
29-04-2017 01:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
This is a very good analysis. ...


By the way...thanks.

I find a pleasure to converse with you. You seem to consider arguments instead of rejecting them out of hand.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 29-04-2017 01:01
29-04-2017 01:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.


Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.


This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.

Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.
Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.

It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.

Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.

Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.

The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.

You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.


I dunno...with your analysis of "playing statistics is gambling".....
These big insurance companies come to mind. They are certainly playing with statistics all day long. Gambling? I suppose....But hell, if I order a pizza I'm gambling too....It might taste like shit!
Interesting though....thought provoking.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 29-04-2017 01:32
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate nationalgeographic on climate change:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact