How to lie statistically?

a reply to: ketsuko

Your single data point, your layman's observation means nothing, it is at best anecdotal 'evidence' something that has no place in an actual scientific discussion.

Look at the average ocean heat content, look at weather baloon observations, ect... The evidence is there, one just has to pull their head of their confirmation biased arse to see it.

Are you now going to claim human activity is not the cause of the CO2 spike we are observing?

a reply to: jrod

do you trust that the CO2 numbers you tout are accurate?

Who collected the numbers?

How did they collect the numbers?


Have you ever questioned or are you taking it on faith?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: growler
captain 'murica, single digit iq matching his shoe size.

I'm a licensed professional Civil Engineer, son. I've done more with the "science" behind the AGW scam than you'd believe.

Thank you for verifying, with working knowledge and experience, what I have thought all along. I have posted my beliefs about this here in the past, but it's always good to have a professional in a given field corroborate what you believe.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They are collected globally at several different spots around the world. I am not going to waste my time linking them, because if someone wanted to look it up, the can simply use a search engine.

There is ZERO doubt that CO2 levels are going up, this is a direct result of human's addiction to fossil fuels.

The fact you are here to cast doubt on CO2 concentrations means you rather embrace ignorance and cast doubt than engage in an intellectual discussion.

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: jrod

The fact you are here to cast doubt on CO2 concentrations means you rather embrace ignorance and cast doubt than engage in an intellectual discussion.

Not at all.

I don't just accept on blind faith. I question. I look for proof.

You take it on faith.

the fact that I even DARE question indicates that.

originally posted by: jrod
There is ZERO doubt that CO2 levels are going up, this is a direct result of human's addiction to fossil fuels.

What percentage of the increase is due to human activity?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ClovenSky

I also agree that the climate changes, but thinking that we are the instigator of that change is pure hubris.

I think that we've done a lot to affect climate change, but not in the way they're telling us. For example, I remember when they told us to stop using aerosols, because they were making a hole in the ozone layer. I never bought that rot then or now, not with all the military rockets, missles and nuclear tests they have done on earth and in the atmosphere. "Bitch Please!"

[

Actually stopping using fluorocarbons has allowed the ozone layer to repair itself to a degree.

From June 30, 2016:

The researchers attributed the ozone's recovery to the continuing decline of atmospheric chlorine originating from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These chemical compounds, once commonly used in aerosols, dry cleaning and refrigerators, were banned when nations around the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 in an effort to repair the ozone hole. [Image Gallery: Life at the South Pole]

www.livescience.com...

TEMPERATURES PLUNGE

Please show the data where it shows "temperatures plunged" after supposed fraud was accounted for in the data? Sounds a bit dramatic, no? And did they plunge for a single recording station, a few, the entire continent, the entire world?

How to lie

Please show the evidence that shows the BoM lied? They've said it was machine error, specifically that smart cards were forcing incorrect minimums on the collected data, which they are correcting. Please show definitively that there was fraud involved.

shrinking number of average citizens

Please show the data that shows the number of people who believe the AGW theory is shrinking. According to this:

climatecommunication.yale.edu...

The majority of Americans think global warming is caused mainly by humans - 53% to 32%. And according to this:

climatecommunication.yale.edu...

that gap has actually gotten wider over the course of this year.

So, as usual, these shocking headlines from these conservative, anti-science websites are hyperbolic and sensationalized. Come back when you actually have some data that supports what you're spouting.

a reply to: jrod

I am not going to waste my time linking them

Usual go to when you yourself are unsure.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jrod
There is ZERO doubt that CO2 levels are going up, this is a direct result of human's addiction to fossil fuels.

What percentage of the increase is due to human activity?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Cool meme, bro. Got an answer to my question?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Only report the data that fits you desired theory.
www.climatedepot.com...

How much more of this nonsense are we going to allow the Chicken Littles to squawk over before sanity prevails and we collectively stop all this AGW scheme in its tracks? It's all BS... the Earth's climate changes in cycles and believing mankind is driving any of it is not only the most arrogant idea going, it also only can be demonstrated using heavily manipulated and highly selective data. When will this shrinking number of average citizens get tired of buying AL Gore more stocks and get tired of handing more control in their lives over for little more than a brief warm fuzzy feeling?

Wasn't this same article posted yesterday here?

Also, wow, that's some ridiculous nonsense to rant about.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Who cares if man isn't "driving it"?

Man surely isn't helping, is he?

And who wants polluted air and water? I certainly don't. Shouldn't we advance our technologies in the direction of cleaner resources as the world's population continues to grow?

To me, this is more about "I'm a conservative and this global climate change is a 'liberal thing' so I'm gonna fight against it!" This is more of an identity politics thing than caring about the world we are leaving for future generations.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

I'm a Civil Engineer in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska, where we have 33+ foot tides, among the largest in the world. Erosion happens and has been happening for eons. Also, when you build in a GD floodplain, YOU FLOOD! Look at New Orleans... it's built in a river delta below the ground water table. That's not climate change, it's arrogant men believing they can build in the dumbest locations imaginable, then covering their asses for their own bad decisions with "Oh woe, boo hoo, the climate has changed, we must do something!" when mother nature slaps them on the ass.

CO2 is actually a cooling gas. The periods in which the Earth has had the highest concentrations (much, much higher than today) Earth has soon after experienced a glaciation period. We can scientifically and mathematically prove this via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the laws of thermodynamics. H2O in vapor form is responsible for overall increases in planet temperature, which is a self-correcting problem for nature. As the temps go up, CO2 output increases, and that CO2 cools the atmosphere... Literally everything the IPCC and Al Gore have told you is BS and yes, there are scores of scientists (real ones, not meterologists as is the case with the "consensus") who have stated exactly this.
www.forbes.com...
www.pbl.nl...

The whole thing is a farce designed to steal money from the developed world via fearmongering and humanity's tendency to believe anyone who speaks in an authoritarian voice while wearing a little lab coat and showing graphs.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FyreByrd

Cool meme, bro. Got an answer to my question?

Near 100%.

Here's roughly how the greenhouse effect works:

originally posted by: Greven
If we did not have greenhouse gases, the Earth as a whole would be approximately 255°K - below freezing. That's for today - the Sun is thought to have increased in its output as it has aged. Now, that 255°K would be for the whole of the atmosphere. Pressure determines mass; a good rule of thumb is that 50% of the remaining mass of the atmosphere will be below every 5.6km increase in altitude. Thus, 50% of atmospheric mass is within about 5.6km of the surface, 75% is within about 11.2km, 87.5% is within about 16.8km, and so on. More than 98% of the Earth's atmospheric mass is below about 33.6km.

UAH for example defines 'lower troposphere' to be from near the surface up to about 8km. Temperature falls with altitude above the surface in the troposphere (the lowest 75% of the atmosphere), as anyone who has been on top of a mountain will understand; this lapse rate is about -6.49 °K/km. Given a mean surface temperature of 288°K, you can guess the temperature for 3/4ths of the atmosphere and about how much mass it makes up. Let's do it roughly by taking the start temperatures and saying that's how much a particular section is (this is slightly inaccurate):
00km: 288.00°K @ 0%
01km: 281.51°K @ 11.3% * 288.00°K = 32.54400°K
02km: 275.02°K @ 10.2% * 281.51°K = 28.71402°K
03km: 268.53°K @ 09.3% * 275.02°K = 25.57686°K
04km: 262.04°K @ 08.4% * 268.53°K = 22.55652°K
05km: 255.55°K @ 07.5% * 262.04°K = 19.65300°K
06km: 249.06°K @ 06.7% * 255.55°K = 17.12185°K
07km: 242.57°K @ 06.1% * 249.06°K = 15.19266°K
08km: 236.08°K @ 05.4% * 242.57°K = 13.09878°K
09km: 229.59°K @ 04.8% * 236.08°K = 11.33184°K
10km: 223.10°K @ 04.2% * 229.59°K = 09.64278°K
11km: 216.65°K @ 03.8% * 223.10°K = 08.47780°K
77.7% of atmospheric mass totals to 203.91011°K

From 11km to 20km is the tropopause, where it's roughly the same temperature and where most remaining mass is:
Pause: 216.65°K @ 18.1% * 216.65°K = 39.21365°K
18.1% of atmospheric mass adds 39.21365°K

This leaves about 4.26% of atmospheric mass unaccounted for; the stratosphere is above the troposphere (by some definitions it includes the relatively constant tropopause) and actually goes up in temperature with height, averaging about 250.15°K. It also makes up almost all of the remaining atmospheric mass.
4.2% of atmospheric mass adds 10.5063°K

The total then is 253.63006°K, though it should be 255°K by the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation; probably this discrepancy is the stratospheric portion (warmer 9-11km range in some latitudes) or small errors in rounding from these calculations... but it's pretty close.

Now that you have some background as to what greenhouse gases do, you need to know a couple of things.
1) Water vapor is the most influential of any greenhouse gases on the lower troposphere.
2) Water vapor doesn't stick around in the atmosphere very long at all.

So, chicken and the egg problem - water vapor couldn't have just spontaneously sprung up and started warming the planet, then persisted on forever. This is where carbon dioxide comes into play, as it hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time and makes up the second most influential greenhouse gas in the lower troposphere. You can see how it (and some others) looks on the infrared spectrum here:


We are indisputably raising carbon dioxide levels. As carbon dioxide is clearly a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases redistribute energy closer to the surface, then we are warming the planet as a whole.

Fortunately, we're also dimming the Earth due to our rampant global pollution of the atmosphere. This means a whole lot of energy from the sun is no longer reaching the Earth's surface. This partially offsets the warming effect from CO2.

There is no natural mechanism to explain the observed warming. The sun's output has not appreciably changed. Man

Things are not looking great all over the place, for example sea ice across the globe has dramatically shifted:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

I'm a Civil Engineer in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska, where we have 33+ foot tides, among the largest in the world. Erosion happens and has been happening for eons. Also, when you build in a GD floodplain, YOU FLOOD! Look at New Orleans... it's built in a river delta below the ground water table. That's not climate change, it's arrogant men believing they can build in the dumbest locations imaginable, then covering their asses for their own bad decisions with "Oh woe, boo hoo, the climate has changed, we must do something!" when mother nature slaps them on the ass.

CO2 is actually a cooling gas. The periods in which the Earth has had the highest concentrations (much, much higher than today) Earth has soon after experienced a glaciation period. We can scientifically and mathematically prove this via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the laws of thermodynamics. H2O in vapor form is responsible for overall increases in planet temperature, which is a self-correcting problem for nature. As the temps go up, CO2 output increases, and that CO2 cools the atmosphere... Literally everything the IPCC and Al Gore have told you is BS and yes, there are scores of scientists (real ones, not meterologists as is the case with the "consensus") who have stated exactly this.
www.forbes.com...
www.pbl.nl...

The whole thing is a farce designed to steal money from the developed world via fearmongering and humanity's tendency to believe anyone who speaks in an authoritarian voice while wearing a little lab coat and showing graphs.

How the ever-loving hell do you get off calling CO2 a cooling gas???

Look at the chart I posted above from 1970 showing where the CO2 bands restrict outbound infrared emissions.

You are denying physics itself. Read my post and get back to me with some reality.

originally posted by: Kettu
And who wants polluted air and water? I certainly don't. Shouldn't we advance our technologies in the direction of cleaner resources as the world's population continues to grow?

Yes, but CO2 isn't a pollutant. This is where they've got you by the short hairs, people believe the lie that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere (3%) and yes, if a man was locked in a room containing only CO2, they'd suffocate... but if I stuck your head into a tub containing only H2O, you'd suffocate, too... wanna claim H2O is a pollutant?

CO2 is merely the byproduct of a carbon based biological world which respires Oxygen. That's it. Trees breath it to remove the carbon and create oxygen the atmosphere uses it to drop the overall temperature. Earth is not static and never has been. The cycles have been occurring since time began and no, humankind isn't involved in the process any more than a grain of sand is involved in controlling the tides on a beach.

originally posted by: Greven
Near 100%.

That level of absolutism troubles me.

We are indisputably raising carbon dioxide levels.

I'm sure we are contributing, but I find it very hard to believe it is 100% our doing. I find the level of alarm around this phenomena equally as troubling as it always seems to revolve around money and when money gets involved the truth becomes whatever is convenient.

a reply to: jrod

Oh, I know.

But then, if that is just weather. So is the heat wave in the west.