It's Climate Change, Stupid

[trysail]

How'd you like Michael "Piltdown" Mann's use of Principal Components Analysis ?


How 'bout them bristlecone pine trees as temperature proxies ?


Yowsah, that Little Ice Age sure was fun wasn't it ?


The climate's been changing for the last 4½ billion years. Neither you nor anybody else knows why.


Computer models of a complex (possibly chaotic), dynamic, non-linear multi-variate system is NOT science— especially when the variables and (god help us) their coefficients are unknown.


Hell, CliSci doesn't even know which are the independent variables and which are the dependent variables.


And computer model forecast accuracy? Verification and validation? GIGO all the way.


The historic temperature record prior to satellite-based measurement is a fucking mess and is completely unreliable. Hell, satellite-based GLOBAL temperature measurement and compilation only commenced in 1979— a mere 40 years ago.


It's astonishing to see how many gullible people there are who have been completely taken in by this pseudoscience.


​

 

[trysail]

You've confused a closed, static, single variable, controlled benchtop laboratory experiment (Arrhenius) with an open, immensely complex (possibly chaotic), multivariate, dynamic (climate) system.

As a result of that fundamental error, you've fooled yourself (which is precisely what Feynman warned about).



You've had lots of help in becoming confused about this critical distinction. The innumerates and scientific illiterates who can only find employment in journalism have repeatedly and loudly regurgitated a bunch of crap.


Poets, social workers, politicians, anthropologists, English majors, art history majors and the like are susceptible to this pseudoscience and amazingly gullible.





​

 

[trysail]

...CO2 and methane have already demonstrated their role...in the past...

...1°C in 50 years...

...the warming is human induced...

...there is no debate about the fact that there is anthropogenic climate change...

...there is no debate it is affecting us...

...and there is no debate that the effects will get worse...

Jeeeeeeezzzuuuuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Try getting your facts right.


You're not even close.




​

 

[trysail]

Folks, why are we even discussing this?

AOC told us we only have 12 years left.

Damn good question.

"...We should be applying the scientific method to claims scientists (and others) are making about the climate. In this case I downloaded the output from 102 climate model simulations used by the IPCC and compared the tropospheric temperature since 1979 between the models and several observational datasets, including the satellite dataset we generate. The models on average were warming the atmosphere at a rate significantly greater than the observations. This is a test result from which we can say the models failed, and thus one shouldn’t depend on model output to characterize the future climate...


...One of the fundamental characteristics of the scientific method is that if we understand a system, then we can predict the behavior of that system. Our work in which we compare “predictions” from climate models against the actual changes of the real world indicate the current understanding of climate change is rather poor. This understanding is certainly not mature enough for regulatory policy. That certain experts and elites refuse to see the level of immaturity of understanding regarding climate, is astonishing.

However, it is understandable since climate is such a complex system, it is easier and more comforting for these elites to simply ignore the complexity and declare they believe CO2 is dangerous and we should believe them because of some status of authority they have garnered for themselves. They claim the “Science is Settled” only because they have not performed the necessary scientific tests which I believe would lead them to the opposite conclusion..."

-John Christy, Ph.D.​

​

​

 

[phrodeau]

Funny to get this comment coming from you, who isn't providing any facts at all, only skewed figures.

Which part is wrong? 1°C in 50 years? Check the figures.

Unprecedented? Show when it has happened before.

Greenhouse gasses have no effect, or are not anthropogenic? You don't read much do you? Or perhaps only conspiracy websites. Yes, there you'll find debates, but that has nothing to do with science.

Guess who had no reply.

 

[trysail]

You've confused a closed, static, single variable, controlled benchtop laboratory experiment (Arrhenius) with an open, immensely complex (possibly chaotic), multivariate, dynamic (climate) system.

As a result of that fundamental error, you've fooled yourself (which is precisely what Feynman warned about).



You've had lots of help in becoming confused about this critical distinction. The innumerates and scientific illiterates who can only find employment in journalism have repeatedly and loudly regurgitated a bunch of crap.


Poets, social workers, politicians, anthropologists, English majors, art history majors and the like are susceptible to this pseudoscience and amazingly gullible.





​

 

[trysail]

..the assertion that humans have caused most of the recent global warming has not been proven. The calculation of human influence on climate is based only on unvalidated climate models as described here and here. In fact, most climate models cannot model the global warming from 1910 to 1945. If they can’t hindcast known global warming, how can they accurately forecast it? Forecasting natural warming is obviously critical to computing the magnitude of man’s impact, so we must remain skeptical of any calculation of man’s influence...


...The New York Times likes to say that more people work in the solar power generation industry than in the coal power generation industry. This sounds great until you realize that in 2016, according to EIA, solar produced 0.9% of our electricity with 373,807 people, versus coal which produced 30% of our electricity with 160,119 people. Productivity growth is where our standard of living comes from, switching to solar is going in the wrong direction. Its apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles. See the New York Times graphic in figure 3. What this means, is that it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker. This only makes economic sense if the solar workers are paid 1.2% of a coal worker’s pay...

-Andy May, Ph.D.
​

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/14/calculating-the-cost-of-global-warming/


​

 

[someoneyouknow]

Climate change denial is oil politics.

If you still deny the climate change and the human role, then you're mentally retarded, or you're following a financial agenda. I guess you don't have children.

Ask Stephen McIntyre where the money is.

No. Climate change denial is like smoking. Literally. Almost word for word, action for action, those who deny it use the exact same process as those who tried to deny smoking causes cancer or other ill effects.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Mussels cooking in their shells because the water is so warm:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/us/heatwave-dead-mussels-road-buckles-wxc-trnd/index.html

Up to six feet of hail in Mexico:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-hail-storm-up-to-6-feet-of-ice-dropped-guadalajara-north-mexico-city-in-summertime-freak-hail-storm-sunday/

 

[trysail]

"...I thought about putting a photo of the Holocaust from a concentration camp next to a few pages of mathematical equations – to make a point. But that would be truly awful. That would trivialize the memory of the terrible suffering of millions of people under one of the most evil regimes the world has seen. And that, in fact, is my point. I can’t find words to describe how I feel about the apologists for the Nazi regime, and those who deny that the holocaust took place. The evidence for the genocide is overwhelming and everyone can understand it. On the other hand, those who ascribe the word ‘denier’ to people not in agreement with consensus climate science are trivializing the suffering and deaths of millions of people. Everyone knows what this word means. It means people who are apologists for those evil jackbooted thugs who carried the swastika and cheered as they sent six million people to their execution...If you have no soul and no empathy for the suffering of millions under the Third Reich, keep calling people who don’t accept consensus climate science ‘deniers’. Otherwise, just stop..."

-The Science of Doom
https://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/


​

"...I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany. When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”. To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach. When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification..."

-Judith Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair (emerita), School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
​

​

 

[trysail]

No. Climate change denial is like smoking. Literally. Almost word for word, action for action, those who deny it use the exact same process as those who tried to deny smoking causes cancer or other ill effects.

The invocation of tobacco automatically disqualifies the poster from being considered an informed commentator on the subject of climate.

It is a sure and certain sign of a lack of knowledge.










​

 

[trysail]

The evidence purporting to underlie the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis can be characterized as assumptions built on guesses on top of estimates based on conjectures filled with suppositions.



​

 

[muycurioso]

the the woke lib billionaires walk the walk

I will believe in global warming. The white ones. The day Bernie sells two of his 3 houses all for his pleasure. I will worship at thd altar of gaia. The day all dems go vegan and only shop local is when I will believe this corporate, globalist swill. Look at all the good libs wearing Nikes, made in China (their pollution is exempt). Shipped here, cell phones too. China. Think of all that CO2.

 

[muycurioso]

yet dems still est meat and buy that made in china label

It can be done like that, but only fools or people trying to fool others would follow that path of thoughts, when the facts are there and obvious to see.

Just America is bad, got it. So after we shut our economy down when will China? And will wd heat our homes with wood or windmills?

 

[phrodeau]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...th-of-july-fireworks-due-to-extreme-heat-wave

Anchorage Alaska has canceled its fireworks display due to extreme heat and fire risk.

Anchorage, Alaska. Let that sink in.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Anchorage, Alaska. Let that sink in."

And does that TERRIFY you, phrodeau?

You DO realize that we're talking about Anchorage, Alaska on July the 4th? The sun rises in Anchorage at about 4:31 am this time of year, and it doesn't set until about 11:35 pm. It can get pretty hot!

Meanwhile, less than a couple of weeks ago it was SNOWING in Colorado!

In Al Gore Oscar-winning film ("An Inconvenient Truth") he warned that sea levels were rising because of the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. But instead the South Pole is gaining more ice than it’s losing, while Greenland remains much the same as usual. Gore warned that polar bears were dying, when in fact there are more polar bears around today than there were when Al was born. Gore predicted that New York City would be underwater by 2015. It didn't happen! NONE of Gore's dire predictions actually came true!

https://i.imgflip.com/1ob5n1.jpg - (Al Gore's memorable scene in the film "Dumb & Dumber")

But preaching about global warming & climate change certainly made Al Gore a wealthy man! Let that sink in.

 

[phrodeau]

The South Pole, huh? Just the pole itself?

It’s winter at the South Pole, you know.

 

[phrodeau]

Anchorage topped 89 degrees today, shattering the previous heat record by four degrees.

 

[Ziggins]

Shift in political climate of deep red states

 

[Just4AFriend]

Hey Dumbington
The White House report was worse or equal to Gore’s predictions

wtf are you going to do when World populations shift?

The defense dept puts climate change at top of world threats

Syrian shifts.., Central America shifts due to drought

Shove your head deeper up your ass

It’s a sex website, we won’t mind

 

[YDB95]

Worst case....the U.S. loses the coasts, and what a shame that would be, wouldn't it?

Every now and then the right says out loud what they all privately think. How illuminating.

 

[Just4AFriend]

Every now and then the right says out loud what they all privately think. How illuminating.

Yup! Only the left lives on coasts.
The South... no coasts at all!
No worries
Science only assumes all oceans and seas will rise

 

[YDB95]

Yup! Only the left lives on coasts.
The South... no coasts at all!
No worries
Science only assumes all oceans and seas will rise

Oh, you haven't heard? God (R-Heaven) is going to spare the Gulf Coast. No worries!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

In Al Gore Oscar-winning film ("An Inconvenient Truth") he warned that sea levels were rising because of the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Guess National Geographic hit the lefty column too eh?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/antarctic-greenland-ice-melt-less-bad/

But instead the South Pole is gaining more ice than it’s losing, while Greenland remains much the same as usual.

The above is factually incorrect.

Gore warned that polar bears were dying, when in fact there are more polar bears around today than there were when Al was born.

So how many bears were around when Gore was born?

I can tell you this, the Polar bear population is in decline in many areas of the Arctic, with the exceptions of the bear populations where humans and their dumps can be found. Guess what, you don't really want bears that stand over 8' tall when on their hind legs hanging around.

Gore predicted that New York City would be underwater by 2015. It didn't happen! NONE of Gore's dire predictions actually came true!

Well one hasn't come true yet anyhow.

 

[YDB95]

Well one hasn't come true yet anyhow.

Assuming Gore really said that [i.e. that New York would be underwater by 2015]. The closest I could find was him saying in 2006 that it could happen in fifteen years (i.e. by 2021).

Now, Gore has been guilty of cherrypicking expert findings to fit his narrative (something Dumpington ought to take his hat off to, since he does the same constantly right here), but he himself has not made these predictions directly. And in the case of "New York will be underwater by 2015", I can't find any evidence that he ever even quoted anyone else as saying that.