RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (Full Version)

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



Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/18/2017 3:38:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML



Forty years ago on this date we saw snow flurries in Miami. Every winter we used to get freeze warnings. The orange and tomato crops had to be protected, and backyard plants as well.

We haven't had those freeze warnings except once or twice in the following decades. There seems to be something afoot with the climate.

Hasn't snowed here since then either.

[sm=dunno.gif]



found this this from the miami herald
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article55396310.html
regarding the snowfall :)



BoscoX -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/18/2017 5:20:09 PM)

Here's the records for Miami, there are several times in the last 40 years its been below or near freezing, which is the criteria for a freeze warning

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=1

And the point is moot, we weren't supposed to have any snow in the Northern states or GB years ago. And no one denies that climate changes naturally

We are coming out of an ice age, have been for a while now. Leftists latched onto that as a reason to tax the bejeezus out of us, women children the poor and minorities hit hardest as always with these leftist schemes

The point of the thread - who is ready for some global warming

I am, and I am far from alone in that



vincentML -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/18/2017 9:09:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Here's the records for Miami, there are several times in the last 40 years its been below or near freezing, which is the criteria for a freeze warning

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=1

And the point is moot, we weren't supposed to have any snow in the Northern states or GB years ago. And no one denies that climate changes naturally

We are coming out of an ice age, have been for a while now. Leftists latched onto that as a reason to tax the bejeezus out of us, women children the poor and minorities hit hardest as always with these leftist schemes

The point of the thread - who is ready for some global warming

I am, and I am far from alone in that

Thanks for linking the chart. I found it interesting.

Record lows for January with three exceptions all occurred before 1985.

I count only six record highs before 1980.

I concede this is a small sample set but it seems to justify the experience I've had living here.

At an earlier time and elsewhere in this discussion I looked at the Antarctic ice bore sample and spotted an apparent anomaly in the graph where the CO2 concentration remained high while the temperature fell briskly. Furthermore, the 97% agreement from scientists proved bogus (the reason escapes me now) So, I remained doubtful of an anthropogenic warming trend. And I can see from the graphs that climate has been cyclical. But the change in recent decades does sort of seem to track the gas concentration increases and the time line of the industrial revolution. At this point, I am uncertain.

Oh, I don't recall anyone promising you no snow. Was that in the UN Reports?



SecondBestBoy -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/19/2017 5:24:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

We are coming out of an ice age, have been for a while now. Leftists latched onto that as a reason to tax the bejeezus out of us, women children the poor and minorities hit hardest as always with these leftist schemes



Is it your goal, BoscoX, to establish your ignorance on a wide range of subjects? I hope so, because you are hitting it out of the park.

We stopped warming from the interglacial (recovery from the ice age) 5,000 years ago. Since then, the precessional/orbital patterns of the earth (known as Milankovitch Forces) had us in a verrry slow cooling phase. We were due for another ice age in a couple thousand years. Instead, in about 1900, humans began burning fossil fuels like crazy and we've seen the sharpest warming spike in human history:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/global-temperatures-hung-a-u-turn-in-1900-reversing-a-5000-year-chill-down/

The last time atmospheric CO2 levels were this high, sea level was 100 feet higher. Forget snow versus heat, South Florida will cease to be a thing. It will be underwater if idiots like you have your vandalist way.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

Maybe if you learn a little of the science around this, you'll stop making such a fool of yourself in public. Though this is a kink site, so maybe that's your thing.



SecondBestBoy -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/19/2017 5:30:32 PM)

"Furthermore, the 97% agreement from scientists proved bogus (the reason escapes me now) "

Right wing media and the paid Merchants of Doubt (there is even a film about these vandals) have been trying to make people think this for years. Just the opposite is true. There are multiple peer reviewed surveys of climate scientists, and they all confirm that agreement is in that range (95-100%, depending on methodology). It's a tribute to the power of the $30 Trillion in revenues that are at stake for a certain industry sector that this nonsense still lives on the internet (especially in the science-illiterate US). Every science academy in the world has been in agreement on this for decades now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature



vincentML -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/20/2017 7:56:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy

"Furthermore, the 97% agreement from scientists proved bogus (the reason escapes me now) "

Right wing media and the paid Merchants of Doubt (there is even a film about these vandals) have been trying to make people think this for years. Just the opposite is true. There are multiple peer reviewed surveys of climate scientists, and they all confirm that agreement is in that range (95-100%, depending on methodology). It's a tribute to the power of the $30 Trillion in revenues that are at stake for a certain industry sector that this nonsense still lives on the internet (especially in the science-illiterate US). Every science academy in the world has been in agreement on this for decades now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

To be clear my political bent is to the left; my criticism is apolitical.

One problem with "the science is settled" school is that the 97% figure is usually stated as "97% of scientists . . " leaving the misleading implication that scientists of many different disciplines are in agreement.

Then, and most egregiously, there are problems within individual surveys that cannot be addressed by a meta analysis. In John Cook's Survey of 11,944 abstracts 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW. Of the 33.7% who did, 97.1% agreed with AGW. That is about 31.28% of all abstracts.

In another, "A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists." Suspect methodology and response size.

And so on. . . .



WickedsDesire -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/20/2017 10:27:20 AM)

Six graphics that explain climate change...saves you having to read up on it all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb



SecondBestBoy -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/20/2017 7:58:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Then, and most egregiously, there are problems within individual surveys that cannot be addressed by a meta analysis. In John Cook's Survey of 11,944 abstracts 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW. Of the 33.7% who did, 97.1% agreed with AGW. That is about 31.28% of all abstracts.

In another, "A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists." Suspect methodology and response size.

And so on. . . .


Wow. Can you seriously not understand what's up with those two situations, or are you concern trolling here?

The basic question of "are humans warming the planet?" was established definitively decades ago. There are NO studies today that are still trying to redundantly answer that "question" - which is only in "debate" amongst the science illiterate part of our public. Your observation is akin to noting that only one or two peer reviewed papers in astronomy journals last year bothered to explicitly state that the earth revolves around the sun - therefore OMG scientists aren't really in consensus on that point at all maybe!! It's an inane conclusion that's grounded only in willful ignorance about where the science has been for 40 years or so (which is how long the consensus has been in place on AGW).

As for the Doran et al study, on what grounds do you claim that a 30% response rate is methodologically suspect? Do you have data about epidemiologically-crafted surveys of busy scientists to know what's normal? I doubt that. You've just pulled this complaint out of your rear end because you have an emotional need to deny that there's a consensus. And of course, you haven't touched the Oreskes survey of literature, the Anderegg or Verheggen ones finding similarly to Doran et al, or the unpublished work of Powell in 2013 that found ONE scientist rejecting the consensus out of over 9,000 publishing climate scientists in 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

Forgive me if I'm not falling for your "golly shucks, I'm just a guy looking for the truth" schtick here. It's a standard act among denialist trolls on the web.



SecondBestBoy -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/20/2017 8:06:59 PM)


And this choice morsel...

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

One problem with "the science is settled" school is that the 97% figure is usually stated as "97% of scientists . . " leaving the misleading implication that scientists of many different disciplines are in agreement.



When you're considering which medication to go on after getting a diagnosis of serious heart disease, are you interested in the recommendation of the cardiologists who publish in the literature, or would you prefer that opinion to be watered down with podiatrists, allergists, dermatologists - and heck let's be fair in this analogy to the one you were pushing for - petroleum geologists, astrophysicists and soil scientists? Because the latter are also "scientists" so why not care about their opinion on something outside their expertise??

I'm pretty sure that if you're a rational person, the answer is "the cardiologists". Yet you prefer a different standard when it comes to climate change. Why? I think I know the answer. You know that it's a topic that an industry with $30 Trillion at stake and the Right collectively have done a great job of politicizing, so that "scientists" who have zero expertise in the area have diverging opinions purely because they personally do not like industry being regulated.

It's adorable that you're pretending that your political bent here "leans left". That's clever trolling. Not buying, sorry.



vincentML -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/20/2017 9:13:48 PM)

i'm amused by the ad hom replies you put up instead of addressing the issues I presented. Do you respond in that fashion whenever your ideas are challenged or questions?

The science of AGW was settled decades ago? When was that precisely and by what mechanism? Can you supply support with a citation? Or did you pull that assertion out of your ass with the attendant gas and turds?

Instead of citations you support your claims with the notion that science has moved on. That is hardly a set of data; it is just a weak narrative by you. And, it certainly not the way science works. I can't imagine Einstein accepting Newton's Gravity Theory as settled and moving on.

The heliocentric journey of earth was tested by predicting and verifying the flights of manned space craft, and data collecting roborockets to name but a few successful experiments. What were the climate change predictions that were verified outside of cranky, cantankerous, quarreling computer models? Even the ice core studies contain anomalies and divergences.

For the Doran study, as in many other surveys in other fields, a low response rate to a survey solicitation is a valid issue. Why wouldn't it be? Can you defend it? Without attacking my gentlemanly person?

In the Cook study the 97.1% agreement conclusion arises from a response sample of only 33.7% of abstracts that had an opinion on AGW. How do you defend that as solid science? Well, of course you fail to present a scientific or mathematical defense but resort instead to accusing me of "willful ignorance."

Of course, you are correct: I did not examine all of the studies. Hell, you can't even defend the two that I criticized.

But, okay, have a look at Bray and von Storch from 2003. Just 14 years ago, not the decades when scientists are no longer, so you claim, interested in the question because the "science is settled" and are moving on to other things.

Here is the criticism from your citation:

The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[34]

The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree".

The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."[citation needed]

Really? The numbers are shite! How can you defend it as a reliable survey? Obviously, you can't so I suppose if you have not hidden yourself away you will come out and defend these flawed results with some scurrilous slanders about me . . . and really, I am such a pleasant and upright fellow. tsk, tsk.

[8|]







blnymph -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/21/2017 8:00:58 AM)

Did you both consider that this is another US-only phenomenon again? One more of the reasons why US "science" is hardly taken serious any more world-wide




vincentML -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/21/2017 10:34:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Did you both consider that this is another US-only phenomenon again? One more of the reasons why US "science" is hardly taken serious any more world-wide

The IPCC is a United Nations committee. How does it become US science, pray tell? And what did you have in mind putting science in quotes?



blnymph -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/21/2017 11:43:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Did you both consider that this is another US-only phenomenon again? One more of the reasons why US "science" is hardly taken serious any more world-wide

The IPCC is a United Nations committee. How does it become US science, pray tell? And what did you have in mind putting science in quotes?

"sarcasm"



vincentML -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/21/2017 6:07:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Did you both consider that this is another US-only phenomenon again? One more of the reasons why US "science" is hardly taken serious any more world-wide

The IPCC is a United Nations committee. How does it become US science, pray tell? And what did you have in mind putting science in quotes?

"sarcasm"

[:)][:)][:)]

Yeah, well, here is a 2015 ranking of global universities in physics.

That is one criteria for consideration. Do you have others?



blnymph -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 3:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Did you both consider that this is another US-only phenomenon again? One more of the reasons why US "science" is hardly taken serious any more world-wide

The IPCC is a United Nations committee. How does it become US science, pray tell? And what did you have in mind putting science in quotes?

"sarcasm"

[:)][:)][:)]

Yeah, well, here is a 2015 ranking of global universities in physics.

That is one criteria for consideration. Do you have others?


No doubt the top half dozen in Physics are the usual suspects of US Ivy League universities with Nobel prize winners (ranked by "Alumni") - the same list though looks already quite different when you look at publications published and quoted.
The ranking also does not include science academies and independent research institutes where most of the European top researchers work. Typical example (concerning Physics) is CERN in Geneva which is not part of any university.


The academic reputation of US science is damaged by the number of self-declared experts on the payrolls of industry and politics.



Kirata -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 3:30:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

The academic reputation of US science is damaged by the number of self-declared experts on the payrolls of industry and politics.

Excuse me, but anything that makes in into a reputable journal has been subjected to the same rigorous peer review as anything else. If you can't raise a valid issue with the methodology or the analysis, pointing to the source of the funding is just a cheap attempt to divert attention away from the rabbit.

K.




thompsonx -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 5:27:52 AM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
If you can't raise a valid issue with the methodology or the analysis, pointing to the source of the funding is just a cheap attempt to divert attention away from the rabbit.


Roflmfao[8|]
Would that be like all of those "scientific" papers produced by the tobacco companies prooving that tobacco is good for you?



Kirata -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 6:19:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
If you can't raise a valid issue with the methodology or the analysis, pointing to the source of the funding is just a cheap attempt to divert attention away from the rabbit.

Roflmfao[8|]
Would that be like all of those "scientific" papers produced by the tobacco companies prooving that tobacco is good for you?

So it's your position that there were there no flaws in their methodology or analysis?

Okay. Yeah, that's funny.

K.



thompsonx -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 6:25:25 AM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


If you can't raise a valid issue with the methodology or the analysis, pointing to the source of the funding is just a cheap attempt to divert attention away from the rabbit.

Roflmfao[8|]
Would that be like all of those "scientific" papers produced by the tobacco companies prooving that tobacco is good for you?



So it's your position that there were there no flaws in their methodology or analysis?

That would rather seem to be your position.



thompsonx -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 6:52:09 AM)


ORIGINAL: BoscoX


They promised the end of snow by now. It's "settled science" they said. WTF!!! I WANT MY GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Who is this "they"? Have you got a cite?


Wild animals are dying hereabout, a lot of them. Ranchers are losing their herds. The worst winter in a long time

Boise, which normally gets 15"-25" of snow a year has so far in 2016 got less than 6".
Do you just open your mouth to change feet?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid,

http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_Boise7N_Boise_ID_January.html



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875