A look at the science behind climate change

a reply to: The GUT

Heh.

I just figured that the poster was agreeing with the OP.

a reply to: dfnj2015

“ skeptical science “ i’ve always found that name humorous. Because they aren’t skeptical .

97% of people will never agree on anything unless they’re all of a like mind . And 97% of scientist surveyed did not have a consensus that man was responsible .

I finally found a link on the methodology of that survey .

Responses of the confidence level of the anthropogenic GHG contribution being larger or smaller than 50% are shown in Figure 4. Respondents who estimated this contribution to be more than 50% (GHG > 50%) did so in combination with a higher level of likelihood, than respondents who estimated this contribution to be smaller than 50% (GHG < 50%). Of the group GHG > 50%, 89% assigned at least the same likelihood as the AR4 (“very likely”) to GHGs contributing more than 50% to recent warming; 65% chose a likelihood at least as high as that in AR5 for net anthropogenic activities (“extremely likely”). In fact, “virtually certain” was selected most often by these respondents (Figure 4). Those with more relevant self-declared fields of expertise assigned a higher likelihood to their particular choice than those with less relevant expertise. Only 39% of the group GHG < 50% assigned a likelihood of “very likely” or stronger to their choice.

“ extremely likely “ and “ very likely” are not facts. That’s contrary to what skeptical science has claimed for years . If you’ve got to lie to prove a point you don’t have a strong point .

pubs.acs.org...

NASA says the same thing “ extremely likely “ you need to quit throwing it around as a fact .

Adjust your numbers and quit claiming it’s irrefutable . Then I’ll listen .

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: underwerks

Bottom line if you pick and choose which data to draw your conclusions from based on preexisting personal bias you'll get bad conclusions.

Um...that's what this thread is about. With examples. Hope you've learned your lesson.

That especially applies to people who spread oil company propaganda. Like the climate deniers in this thread.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm pretty sure all the gasoline we are burning everyday is causing a pollution problem.

No more than the hot air coming off politicians and liberals, but even that pales in comparison to active volcanoes which can produce more toxic gases in 4-7 days than the entire human race in the last 50 years. When are they going to start racing volcanoes and the sun?

Maybe liberals can cap volcanoes and we can watch the planet explode...... Once.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

You are in the 3% then:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Are you a climate scientists? I'm just wondering where the authority of your credentials about speaking on the topic are coming from? Or are you just an amateur like me?

Ah, here's where the rubber meets the road.

Please, do, list what percentage of that 97% of scientists are Climate Scientists or even related fields...

Since you brought it up.

We'll wait.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm pretty sure all the gasoline we are burning everyday is causing a pollution problem.

I have never seen a post of your more deserving of the Turtle defense.



Stay classy sport.

I am a skeptic like the op and I know what BS smells like. BS is strong in the climate change scam.

All the curves show co2 increase follow global temperature increases by dozens to hundreds of years. So, what creates a temperature increase apart from internal conditions, meaning ejected magma, changes in the magnetic field and the big one, the sun? It seems to me that it's quite arrogant to think that we as species create more planetary "damage" read temperature change than those 80 volcanoes going off every year and/or the sun. Ask yourself, why is climate change occurring on all the other planets in the solar system? Is that cow darts and SUVs? Apply some bloody logic.

Then we have the religion of climate science, made up of the failed zealots, weathermen/women, in the only job where you can be wrong every day and not get fired.

C'mon, get serious lol. Our tax dollars for "climate change control or reversal" are being used to enrich already rich people under the auspices of wealth redistribution. Ask any politician what their plan is to fix the falicy of athropromorphic climate change. They won't have an answer, because it isn't about fixing something that isn't broken. It's about separating your money, your value, from you to give to somebody else, while the purveyors of this scam, skim 90% off the top for themselves.

Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute. In this new dysfunctional and dystopian liberal reality, I'd have to increase that to at least one sucker born ever 100ms or so. We are being outbread by idiots.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

And this doesn't even take into account non-volcanic CO2:

The results obtained in Italy demonstrate that total CO2 flux estimates cannot be reliably quantified without the investigation of ground waters, which in permeable orogens of tectonically young and active areas can dissolve most, if not all, the CO2rising from depth. Although it has long been recognized (Barneset al. 1978;Irwin & Barnes 1980) that seismically active regions worldwide are characterized by the occurrence of CO2 degassing, quantitative data on CO2fluxes are practically missing for most of these. We believe that investigation of diffuse degassing in these regions is crucial to better constrain the global carbon flux.

emphases mine

Measuring and interpreting CO2fluxes at regional scale: the caseof the Apennines, Italy(direct .pdf linl)

a reply to: dfnj2015


When was the last time you saw a 16 year old girl in braids ?

Makes her look cute and a lot younger?

Her mother coincidentally has a book to sell!!

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Follow the money?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: MykeNukem
S+F.
You won't get any rebuttals that deal with the actual data (data that isn't corrupt). Only Ad Hom's and Spin.
Same as usual.
Great Thread.

I agree. When one side thinks their own opinions are facts and people who have opposing opinions are worthless human beings what is the point of having any discussion.

Lmao this is rich, when it's the climate change skeptics who usually get ridiculed and treated like worthless idiots. I've even seen the idea of locking up the skeptics be floated around, that's a level of self-assurance which is simply delusional. And your rebuttal to the OP was completely laughable... you mentioned a statistic which has been repeated a billion times, telling us how people paid to prove man made global warming exists agree it exists, and then referred to a "lecture" from a child to tell us how naive we are.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

You are in the 3% then:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Are you a climate scientists? I'm just wondering where the authority of your credentials about speaking on the topic are coming from? Or are you just an amateur like me?

I believe that we are messing up our ecosystem, including messing up climate patterns. I just do not agree with the narrow minded solution to the problem they are pushing...CO2 is not the biggest problem, destroying the earths ability to naturally fix the problem is the major issue. That includes all the massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and improperly dealt with sewer containing unnatural chemistry in it. It effects the ability of the plants and microbes to bind up carbon and put it back into the earth.

I am not in the three percent that do not believe the earth is not warming, that evidence is solid, I am saying it is way more broad spectrum than taxing gas and paying scientists to verify that the earth is warming and our destruction is eminent. I know it is very important to fix it, but they are not going to fix it no matter how much money we give them. Unless they find a better solar panel chemistry, the environmental cost of obtaining the rare earth elements is actually more negative to the environment than it is good. It is a way of bolstering the economy, if you wanted to actually fix the problem, limit people's use of Air conditioning, a tree on side the house can cut the cooling costs down considerably, plant a few trees instead.

I am disappointed with people who back this climate agenda, they have been buffaloed into believing they are helping the environment when in fact the fifty grand they spent fixing up their house with Eco-friendly improvements actually will take a lifetime to recover any benefit because their improvements hurt the ecosystem more than they ever helped it.

If your refrigerator runs in the summer, it actually keeps food cool but heats your house from the outside of the refrigerator. so then you need air conditioning in the summer. Now in the winter, the heat removed from the fridge heats the house, no loss there. In fact, that is energy efficient. I thought about building a refrigerator with a seperate compressor in the basement, that way you could heat the basement with the refrigerator. Also, a walk in freezer would be kind of nice, same there. In the summer, just route the air from the compressor outside, winter vent it inside. That is efficiency, buying a new fridge after seven years because it fails because they are making them to fail is not energy efficiency.

My old fashioned freezer, now retired to an emergency unit spare, is thirty years old and I replaced it because it is probably low on gas but works great yet but costs more to run than the new ones. I need the third freezer in the fall when we get our side of beef temporarily till I give Christmas beef presents to my relatives.

I have seen the energy bills go up over the years, why? Because of energy regulations mostly, requiring companies to invest in gas powered engines to fire up the power plants at huge cost. There was hardly any smoke coming out of the power plants here using coal, they had scrubbers on the chimneys and there was more exhaust coming out of four city blocks of houses than out of that power plant if you take away the water vaper coming out of the plant..

The energy out of coal vs energy out of gas....it is developed by breaking the carbon hydrogen bond or the carbon carbon bond. You do not really burn coal, nor do you burn gas, you use heat as a catalyst and break bonds which give off various types of heat energy or energy that can be converted by different methods into electricity. Carbon and hudrogen are given off and the hydrogen and carbon attach to the air oxygen to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide as part of the reaction. Splitting the molecules creates the energy, the same amount of carbon side products are released per kilowatt of energy, it is only the efficiency of the power plant that is what matters, Recipro engines lose their efficiency over the years, sure, initially they are better, but within a couple of years efficiency goes down as things wear out. Steam is the best, they could heat many houses with the wasted heat from the cooling water,

But instead of doing that, they replace the plant with some expensive engines they need to keep going and which are reliant on gas lines coming in, gas lines that a small localized earthquake caused by fracking could shut down.

I consider myself a moderate environmentalist, I always have been protective of nature. I am against this climate agenda BS they are focusing on though, I would rather see it done right.

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: dfnj2015


When was the last time you saw a 16 year old girl in braids

?

Makes her look cute and a lot younger?

Her mother coincidentally has a book to sell!!

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Follow the money?

Another brainwashed ridiculous child pushed by a "stage-mother" only interested in riding her child to the money. Such great role models for the agcc scam. I wonder if she'll eventually be a priestess for their religion? They could get avanetti as well and use stormy Daniels as the head priestess lol.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The way science is supposed to be conducted is to eliminate personal bias, bigotry, prejudice, and superstition:

The problem is one side of the issue just refuses to believe in the science no matter what:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Listen to Greta's talk. She's very compelling. How can you possibly argue with her little girl logic:

Most things they use to promote green actually stimulate the economy, they want to sell more things. The real environmentalists are right, the climate change people are scam artists.

This

These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology.

50 meters.

Yes. And the effect is taken into account with temperature models. But the thing is, even if a location shows any particular temperature bias, it still records the trend, which is one of warming. And stations which are more than 50 meters from "encroachment" also show that trend. This sort of study is important because it helps to further quantify the various biases in instrumentation and location, improving the ability to create effective temperature models.

The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias.

www.realclimate.org...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Ill give you names of some scientists who disagree

William Happer
Richard Lindzen
Terry J. Lovell
Ian Plimer
Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever
Patrick Moore
Roy Spencer
Don Easterbrook
Ian Clark
Piers Corbyn
John Christy
Philip Stott
Paul Reiter
Patrick Michaels
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Tim Ball
Frederick Singer
Carl Wunsch
Eigil Friis-Christensen
Jennifer Marohasy
Willie Soon
Ottmar Edenhofer
Judith Curry

When the local weather reporting station goes from the farmers field to the High School roof you know their might be a problem.

a reply to: mikell

Such relocations are taken into account. In general the data from the new location is treated as independent from the original location if it is not consistent.

a reply to: Dr UAE

Here's a paper from a climate scientist (Richard Muller) who was formerly skeptical of global temperature models. He, and others, developed their own model. Interestingly, Judith Currey was a co-author.

Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).

www.scitechnol.com...

You can get Berkeley Earth's data, and model here:
berkeleyearth.org...

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: MykeNukem
S+F.
You won't get any rebuttals that deal with the actual data (data that isn't corrupt). Only Ad Hom's and Spin.
Same as usual.
Great Thread.

I agree. When one side thinks their own opinions are facts and people who have opposing opinions are worthless human beings what is the point of having any discussion.

This lack of self awareness is astonishing.

You people are literally doing this. Right now.

I have to question your motives now, if you can't even realize this.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't need a scientist to tell me that the climate has changed.

I have lived in the same southern swamp area my entire life.

I know the climate has changed.

What I don't know is why. Or what caused that change.

When you live in farm country you grow up noticing the weather patterns.