RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation)

RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/20/2013 6:36:17 AM)
As I stated, Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 39% since the beginning of industrialization (1750) but there has not been a proportional increase in temperature. The temperature increase (degree C) estimated from a doubling of CO2 abundance is the measure of climate sensitivity. There is an enourmous amount of uncertainties in climate science and a large amount of 'tribalism' and turf bias among climate scientists to question that the matter is settled science. "What is obvious is that including the data of the past few years pushes the estimates of climate sensitivity downward, because there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing. Also in some datasets the ocean warming in the top 700 meters is rather small, with very small uncertainties (Levitus GRL 2012), pushing the sensitivity down further. However, in my view one should be careful in over interpreting these results for several reasons:" (SNIP) "Even though we have many of these studies (and I am responsible for a couple of them) I’m getting more and more nervous about them, because they are so sensitive to the climate model, the prior distributions, the forcing, the ocean data, the error model, etc. The reason for this, to a large extent, is that the data constraint is weak, so the outcome (posterior) is dominated by what you put in (prior)." SOURCE In other words, garbage in . . . garbage out. It is not incumbant upon skeptics to provide an alternate model. That is not the way science works except in your oft repeated fantasy. Science requires that advocates of the proposed model show that the predictions made by the model are not falsifiable. Climate scientists have not done that. Until they do they have no case for the current model. The science is far from being "settled."

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/20/2013 2:28:22 PM)
A theory is valid if it is the best explanation of the evidence and no contrary evidence exists. Therefore yes, it is incumbent upon you to present some alternate better than GHG for the present warming or you could try overturning all of physics and show that CO2 is not a photon trap. As to falsifiability, you have that exactly backwards. A theory must be falsafiable, I present two different methods for doing so above.

vincentML -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 7:14:42 AM)
Sorry, a theory is just a guess if it makes no predictions which can be tested, ie: are falsifiable. It is not a scientific model. Global warming alarm, as I understand it, is based on nine different computer simulations that do not agree well in their predictions of the distant behavior of a dynamic climate system. Please note that in the first decade of the 21stC the predictions of warming in the face of a large increase in atmospheric CO2 did not occur. So, at best the "theory" has already been falsified. Simply because CO2 is a photon trap does not make it an efficient photon trap to cause significant global warming. The uncertainty of its climate sensitiivity [which you ignore] easily leaves it open to criticism and therefore leaves catastrophic climate warming open to skepticism. It is a huge and unverified leap from the science of CO2 to the "science" of global climate change. Is that all you have?

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 7:27:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sorry, a theory is just a guess if it makes no predictions which can be tested, ie: are falsifiable. It is not a scientific model. Global warming alarm, as I understand it, is based on nine different computer simulations that do not agree well in their predictions of the distant behavior of a dynamic climate system. Please note that in the first decade of the 21stC the predictions of warming in the face of a large increase in atmospheric CO2 did not occur. So, at best the "theory" has already been falsified. Simply because CO2 is a photon trap does not make it an efficient photon trap to cause significant global warming. The uncertainty of its climate sensitiivity [which you ignore] easily leaves it open to criticism and therefore leaves catastrophic climate warming open to skepticism. It is a huge and unverified leap from the science of CO2 to the "science" of global climate change. Is that all you have? The theory of global warming makes numerous predictions 1) increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere, all other factors unchanged, will result in more energy retained by the atmosphere. 2) more energy held in the atmosphere will result in more extreme weather BTW the first decade of the 21st century was the hottest 10 year span ever recorded to that time. You're relying on a climate change denial lie that says that since none of those years was warmer than 1998, an outlier year that was a record breaker, that no warming occured. That fundamentally misunderstand the facts of climate and the reality of a system as large and chaotic as the Earth. BNut you're still grasping at straws. The globe is warming, that is a fact. No variable involved has changed in the right direction except GHG concentrations. Until you present some alternative that must be assumed to be the culprit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 10:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The theory of global warming makes numerous predictions 1) increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere, all other factors unchanged, will result in more energy retained by the atmosphere. 2) more energy held in the atmosphere will result in more extreme weather BTW the first decade of the 21st century was the hottest 10 year span ever recorded to that time. You're relying on a climate change denial lie that says that since none of those years was warmer than 1998, an outlier year that was a record breaker, that no warming occured. That fundamentally misunderstand the facts of climate and the reality of a system as large and chaotic as the Earth. BNut you're still grasping at straws. The globe is warming, that is a fact. No variable involved has changed in the right direction except GHG concentrations. Until you present some alternative that must be assumed to be the culprit. But, if the models that predict outcomes aren't making correct predictions, then what do we have? We would have flawed models, no? You do realize that water vapor has the greatest impact on global warming, right? It doesn't have the greatest impact per molecule, or however you want to measure it. It's relatively weak, but damn, if it isn't everywhere. CO2 itself doesn't have the strongest impact, either, and because of it's low concentration, compared to water vapor, it doesn't come close to the impact. Arctic sea ice is hitting low marks pretty much every year. Yet, Antarctic sea ice is hitting high marks pretty much every year. Based on which model you look at, one shows a 10,000 sq.km/year loss while the other shows a 700 sq.km/year gain (data was collected from 1979-2008). Global temperatures may be rising, but they aren't rising in direct relation to the rise in CO2. They are both rising, but hasn't it also been said that a rise in global temperatures will cause a rise in CO2? Is it possible that we have correlation, but not causation? Who gets to decide what climate is the "right" climate anyway? Do plants grow better or worse under increased CO2 concentrations? With an increase in the number of people (correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that been rising since the 1930's, too?) comes an increase in the amount of food necessary to sustain those people. Some might think that improving crop growth might just be a good idea to keep ahead of the global population's food demand (or, at least, not fall behind more). Global Climate Change science isn't settled. It may be settled tomorrow. It may not be settled in our lifetimes. The models are wrong. It might be a little mistake. It might not be. The original data is gone; "lost." Every model used that data, and that data only. If it was every corrupted, then everyone is relying on corrupted data to create models that will also be corrupt. http://www.lohud.com/article/DG/20130220/OPINION/302200302/NASA-satelitte-data-casts-doubt-global-warming-theories http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2009/08/14/global_warming_oops_we_lost_the_data

AlittleCrazy098 -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 11:01:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR There seems to be this weird culture in American politics that has it that a) nobody knows a thing about what the police or military does; members of the aforementioned organisations are "experts" and we should shut the fuck up when they talk from their position of absolute wisdom about policing and military matters respectively but that b) everyone knows as much, if not more, than teachers about teaching and the education system in general. This seems to be the reason why you get one dangerously over-tanned, alarmingly-white-toothed, square-jawed meathead after another coming up with his unbelievably cretinous opinion on education, which is a matter about which he generally knows utterly zilch. How do you all put up with it? More to the point: why are these lunatics in any position of power in the first place? Because AMERICA HAS BEEN SOLD AND BOUGHT!!! That would be the uneducated easy answer that I have.

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 11:04:29 AM)
Technically no science is ever settled however there are issues which would require so much of our present knowledge to be wrong as to be ridiculous to argue against. AGW is in that category now. The arguments presented by you are either wrong or misrepresented. For instance Antartica is a continent and the vast majority of the ice is on land and the fact is that ice is thinning, which may result in more ice in the water as icebergs calve off the melting glaciers. If it was simply a matter of more COP2 then yes that would be a good thing ofr agriculture. However hotter weather means the zone where temperate zone plants, most of our food crops, can grow moves poleward where there is less arable land. Also more chaotic weather makes all agriculture harder. Why do deniers think these fairly obvious issues have not been considered by the actual scientists?

DesideriScuri -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 11:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Technically no science is ever settled however there are issues which would require so much of our present knowledge to be wrong as to be ridiculous to argue against. AGW is in that category now. The arguments presented by you are either wrong or misrepresented. For instance Antartica is a continent and the vast majority of the ice is on land and the fact is that ice is thinning, which may result in more ice in the water as icebergs calve off the melting glaciers. If it was simply a matter of more COP2 then yes that would be a good thing ofr agriculture. However hotter weather means the zone where temperate zone plants, most of our food crops, can grow moves poleward where there is less arable land. Also more chaotic weather makes all agriculture harder. Wouldn't the land in Canada be more arable if it was warmer? Couldn't N.Dakota be the next Nebraska? Warmer temps could also mean longer growing seasons, too, Heaven forbid. quote: Why do deniers think these fairly obvious issues have not been considered by the actual scientists? I don't doubt they have been considered by the actual scientists. Isn't it possible that the actual scientists profit more by ignoring contradictory data and maintaining their arguments? quote: Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." By cross-examining data with other Climate Change models, he concluded that carbon dioxide is just a minor part in global warming. SOURCE

mnottertail -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 11:19:12 AM)
It would mean longer growing seasons like the sahara desert, if you havent noticed, the warmer and lack of snowfall, rainfall, and the extreme use of fracking and drainage and irrigation is totalling out the oglalla aquifer and so on.

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 12:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Technically no science is ever settled however there are issues which would require so much of our present knowledge to be wrong as to be ridiculous to argue against. AGW is in that category now. The arguments presented by you are either wrong or misrepresented. For instance Antartica is a continent and the vast majority of the ice is on land and the fact is that ice is thinning, which may result in more ice in the water as icebergs calve off the melting glaciers. If it was simply a matter of more COP2 then yes that would be a good thing ofr agriculture. However hotter weather means the zone where temperate zone plants, most of our food crops, can grow moves poleward where there is less arable land. Also more chaotic weather makes all agriculture harder. Wouldn't the land in Canada be more arable if it was warmer? Couldn't N.Dakota be the next Nebraska? Warmer temps could also mean longer growing seasons, too, Heaven forbid. Actually it would mean less land, the land towards the equator would become too hot for those crops, and a shorter growing season, AGW will have no effect on axial tilt so the poleward areas where temperate crops will grow will have shorter days in spring which means slower growth and or later planting. quote: quote: Why do deniers think these fairly obvious issues have not been considered by the actual scientists? I don't doubt they have been considered by the actual scientists. Isn't it possible that the actual scientists profit more by ignoring contradictory data and maintaining their arguments? quote: Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." By cross-examining data with other Climate Change models, he concluded that carbon dioxide is just a minor part in global warming. SOURCE Spencer is a creationist so I completely ignore his blatherings. As to this most recent BS, how could there not be more energy lost from the atmosphere after warming? There is more energy present. No one is claiming CO2 will sink every bit of solar energy and hold it indefinitely.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 6:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually it would mean less land, the land towards the equator would become too hot for those crops, and a shorter growing season, AGW will have no effect on axial tilt so the poleward areas where temperate crops will grow will have shorter days in spring which means slower growth and or later planting. Do you have any idea where you can find data on axial tilt metrics? quote: quote: Why do deniers think these fairly obvious issues have not been considered by the actual scientists? I don't doubt they have been considered by the actual scientists. Isn't it possible that the actual scientists profit more by ignoring contradictory data and maintaining their arguments? quote: Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." By cross-examining data with other Climate Change models, he concluded that carbon dioxide is just a minor part in global warming. SOURCE Spencer is a creationist so I completely ignore his blatherings. As to this most recent BS, how could there not be more energy lost from the atmosphere after warming? There is more energy present. No one is claiming CO2 will sink every bit of solar energy and hold it indefinitely. Oh, I see. So, the NASA team leader, who is a Creationist, obviously can't know a damn thing about global warming, then, and all his data and analysis is obviously no good. That's why he works for NASA. More discrediting of the source instead of discrediting the message. That's a common gambit for the run-of-the-mill Liberal. Far more I expected of you, I did.

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 8:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually it would mean less land, the land towards the equator would become too hot for those crops, and a shorter growing season, AGW will have no effect on axial tilt so the poleward areas where temperate crops will grow will have shorter days in spring which means slower growth and or later planting. Do you have any idea where you can find data on axial tilt metrics? Beyond a good almanac? What else do you want? quote: quote: Spencer is a creationist so I completely ignore his blatherings. As to this most recent BS, how could there not be more energy lost from the atmosphere after warming? There is more energy present. No one is claiming CO2 will sink every bit of solar energy and hold it indefinitely. Oh, I see. So, the NASA team leader, who is a Creationist, obviously can't know a damn thing about global warming, then, and all his data and analysis is obviously no good. That's why he works for NASA. More discrediting of the source instead of discrediting the message. That's a common gambit for the run-of-the-mill Liberal. Far more I expected of you, I did. Notice how I dealt with his idiotic claim but you ignored it? You reserve that privilege for yourself but deny it to me?

DesideriScuri -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 8:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually it would mean less land, the land towards the equator would become too hot for those crops, and a shorter growing season, AGW will have no effect on axial tilt so the poleward areas where temperate crops will grow will have shorter days in spring which means slower growth and or later planting. Do you have any idea where you can find data on axial tilt metrics? Beyond a good almanac? What else do you want? This is something I've been wondering about for a while now. You brought it up, so it popped back to the front of the line. That's all. The Earth does wobble, and I think there was something last year that said the axis was changed by something, I can't recall what, though. I wonder if there has been any change in the axis over the years. That's all. quote: quote: quote: Spencer is a creationist so I completely ignore his blatherings. As to this most recent BS, how could there not be more energy lost from the atmosphere after warming? There is more energy present. No one is claiming CO2 will sink every bit of solar energy and hold it indefinitely. Oh, I see. So, the NASA team leader, who is a Creationist, obviously can't know a damn thing about global warming, then, and all his data and analysis is obviously no good. That's why he works for NASA. More discrediting of the source instead of discrediting the message. That's a common gambit for the run-of-the-mill Liberal. Far more I expected of you, I did. Notice how I dealt with his idiotic claim but you ignored it? You reserve that privilege for yourself but deny it to me? I have no idea what the fuck I was looking at. You did address the claim, too. I apologize for that. As energy rises, more exits the Earth. It's a negative feedback. You dismissed his analysis of what that means simply because of who he is, though.

DomKen -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/21/2013 9:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is something I've been wondering about for a while now. You brought it up, so it popped back to the front of the line. That's all. The Earth does wobble, and I think there was something last year that said the axis was changed by something, I can't recall what, though. I wonder if there has been any change in the axis over the years. That's all. There have been. A couple of the milankovitch cycles are about the axial tilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#Axial_tilt_.28obliquity.29 quote: I have no idea what the fuck I was looking at. You did address the claim, too. I apologize for that. As energy rises, more exits the Earth. It's a negative feedback. You dismissed his analysis of what that means simply because of who he is, though. He says more energy leaves. Since we know that solar input has not varied significantly that means the air is holding more energy. That energy pretty much has to be in the GHG's. I, and all of the working climatologists, dismiss his albedo blather because it doesn't fit the data and the fact that he is a creationist means people are extra skeptical of his claims, as everyone should be of someone who holds such obviously and proven wrong beliefs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/22/2013 7:59:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is something I've been wondering about for a while now. You brought it up, so it popped back to the front of the line. That's all. The Earth does wobble, and I think there was something last year that said the axis was changed by something, I can't recall what, though. I wonder if there has been any change in the axis over the years. That's all. There have been. A couple of the milankovitch cycles are about the axial tilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#Axial_tilt_.28obliquity.29 Thanks for the link. Going to take some time to digest it. Great link, though.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875