"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.

According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C).

That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).

https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

BalcombeSt4

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Climate change has become one of the causes that the liberal left have attached themselves to. Like most issues these people become attached to it has become a sort of cult. Anyone who even questions the consensus is labelled a 'denier' There are climate scientists in top US colleges who complain that funding is only given to scientists who accept human caused climate change and some are even afraid to voice their opinion for fear of the backlash.

It's also a cause the conservative left and the liberal right have attachments to.

BalcombeSt4

dense wrote: »

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.


https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

Plus it snowed once somewhere so how can it be getting warmer?

Those lefty-libtard-cuck-muck-pinky-yellow-bellyed-commie-socialist-scum-democratic-consvertaive-progressives are just so silly sometimes. At least you & me know the truth a?

WinnyThePoo

WesternZulu

dense wrote: »

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018

dense wrote: »

If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.


https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.



The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

There you go again Akrasia. Reading the full sentences. Don't you know that's what they want you to do? You're supposed to pick the words and figures you want in isolation and then spin them to fit your own narrative.

dense

WesternZulu wrote: »

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018


No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

Why would anyone want to get rid of it??? Wouldn't it be too cold?

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[4] Le Treut H.; Somerville R.; Cubasch U.; Ding Y.; Mauritzen C.; Mokssit A.; Peterson T.; Prather M. Historical overview of climate change science (PDF). Retrieved 14 December 2008. in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007

The page you linked to shows a graph of anomalies, not average yearly global temperatures.

The pages I linked to show that in spite of alleged global warming and alleged climate change from C02 emissions, the average global temperature for 2017 was estimated at 14.9°C, which is extremely close to what it apparently should be, 15°C.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.



The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

dense

dense wrote: »

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

There you have it folks, Kelkin popcorn remains the standard-bearer. We now turn to Steven Seagal for a closing statement: "What I say is law."

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

Wow, you must have been up all night looking for a nugget that you can twist to suit your narrative. The Hansen paper from 1981 was using 'a simple model' to test the greenhouse effect. The 'simple model' put in close enough estimates for the radiative forcing, the radius of the earth, and the global average temperature.

The figure in the paper is given as ~288k
Do you know what the ~ means in this context? it means approximation.

It means it's close enough for the purpose of the model. By 1980 the temperature anomaly was already about 0.25c above the baseline so take that as 14.25c and convert it to Kelvin, that equals 287.4k.

All your late night googling has found you a mention of an approximate temperature used for a simple model that was 'inaccurate' by .1 of a kelvin.

Any comment on your previous post where you were completely wrong?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Wow, you must have been up all night looking for a nugget that you can twist to suit your narrative. The Hansen paper from 1981 was using 'a simple model' to test the greenhouse effect. The 'simple model' put in close enough estimates for the radiative forcing, the radius of the earth, and the global average temperature.

The figure in the paper is given as ~288k
Do you know what the ~ means in this context? it means approximation.

It means it's close enough for the purpose of the model. By 1980 the temperature anomaly was already about 0.25c above the baseline so take that as 14.25c and convert it to Kelvin, that equals 287.4k.

All your late night googling has found you a mention of an approximate temperature used for a simple model that was 'inaccurate' by .1 of a kelvin.

Any comment on your previous post where you were completely wrong?

I'm sorry for bursting your bubble but this claim from someone who's been making up figures for the last few pages, and who thinks an ex UN climate chief working for an oil company makes them corrupt, along with your fretting about the carbon footprint of the tomato in your club sandwich, saying I'm wrong having just demonstrated that the "approximate" global temperature in 1981, 288k is the same as today's, 288k, is a bit of a stretch.

But let's use your latest groundbreaking methodology:

Akrasia wrote: »

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

In 1981 there was 340.36 ppm atmospheric CO2 and you said the average global temperature was ~ 288k.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

According to your own theory, increasing atmospheric Co2 by another 66ppm has had "approximately" NO effect, because the earth's average global temperature in 2017 was, surprise, surprise, 288k.


https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.htm



Solid theory Akrasia.

Akrasia

How many papers did you have to skip past while you were googling before you found a single mention of global average temperature in the 1980s that suited your narrative?

This is your methodology dense. You wade through thousands of pieces of data that say the opposite of what you believe until you find one nugget of data that you can twist into a justification for your warped version of reality.

A paper in 1981 that used approximate data to construct a simple model that used 188k instead of 187k in the calculations does not invalidate the thousands of studies using the 1950-1981 baseline as 14c

This is not how science works.

Global warming is increasing at a rate of about .15c to .2c per decade since the 1970s, so given a temperature in 1981 of about 14.25c, and a temperature anomaly in 2017 of 14.9c, this is a warming of 0.65c over a period of 36 years which is exactly in line with the warming measured by climate scientists

kneemos

Climatologist types feel compelled to big up their claims for some reason.

That's all I know about it.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You wade through thousands of pieces of data that say the opposite of what you believe until you find one nugget of data that you can twist into a justification for your warped version of reality.

There is one person here with a warped version of reality and it is the person who cannot handle basic facts, as demonstrated by how you dealt with JFK and Christiana Figures a page or two ago.


You are now attempting to wash your hands of your own methodology and I don't blame you.

You have been waffling on attempting to get punters to fall for the hoax UN calls to prevent a 1.5°c warming above something you have no idea about.


I seriously wouldn't like to be sitting down and looking at a tomato on a plate and fretting about its impact on "global warming".

It is an unhealthy obsession, and one that is affecting your ability to deal with facts rationally.


Stop fretting about it, stop trying to whip others into a frenzy about and start realising your fretting is based on models that are being programmed for maximum exposure by earth scientists who can't belive their luck that their musings are still being taken seriously by anyone.

Edit: Nice cartoon.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

There is one person here with a warped version of reality and it is the person who cannot handle basic facts, as demonstrated by how you dealt with JFK and Christiana Figures a page or two ago.


You are now attempting to wash your hands of your own methodology and I don't blame you.

You have been waffling on attempting to get punters to fall for the hoax UN calls to prevent a 1.5°c warming above something you have no idea about.


I seriously wouldn't like to be sitting down and looking at a tomato on a plate and fretting about its impact on "global warming".

It is an unhealthy obsession, and one that is affecting your ability to deal with facts rationally.


Stop fretting about it, stop trying to whip others into a frenzy about and start realising your fretting is based on models that are being programmed for maximum exposure by earth scientists who can't belive their luck that their musings are still being taken seriously by anyone.

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

There's only one person trying to whip people into a frenzy too.

maccored

We're fecked no matter according to this:

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/10/new-outlook-on-global-warming-best-prepare-for-social-collapse-and-soon/

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

And, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has said they share my view about not going all in for the alarmist position.



We really should reconsider that denialist stance if we care about future generations apparently.



What's your own reason for not being an alarmist?

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

And, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has said they share my view about not going all in for the alarmist position.



We really should reconsider that denialist stance if we care about future generations apparently.



What's your own reason for not being an alarmist?

There is a massive, massive middle ground between "we're all fecked in a few years" and "this is all made up by those pesky UN socialists".

I'm not going to bother elaborating on my position any further than that, because you'll twist it beyond recognition and keep bringing it up for around 20 pages. I'm sure you'll try to do the same with this post as it stands but a) I've tried to keep it short enough that you have limited scope to work with and b) anyone reading this thread can see what you're at anyway.

Akrasia

maccored wrote: »

We're fecked no matter according to this:

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/10/new-outlook-on-global-warming-best-prepare-for-social-collapse-and-soon/

This is the last phase of global warming denial "It's happening but it's too late to do anything about it so better buckle up and enjoy the ride'

I'm not saying that Jem Bendell is a global warming denier, but this is part of the playbook that professional deniers are playing off.

1. Nothing to see here
2. Maybe something but there are always alarmists giving out about something
3. Ok, there is a problem but we don't know whats causing it
4. Ok, we're maybe causing part of the problem, but most of it is 'something else'
5. Ok, we don't know what that something else could be, but we need to study everything more deeply before we can say for absolute certain that it's us who are responsible
6. Fine, it's us, we'll do our best to stop the damage we're doing, but we can't possibly do it right away, change takes time
7. Ok, we know that we should be moving faster, but you don't want to deprive the world of the wealth/joy our product brings to the world because there is no viable alternative
8. Ok, there is an alternative, lets work towards that, but it's not economically competitive yet, in the meantime, keep using our stuff
9. Ok, the alternative works and is economically viable and solves most of our problems, fine, we'll phase out our product over the coming decades
10. Oops, it's too late, we've already caused all that harm, we can't reverse it now, oh well. might as well keep using our product cause the world is screwed anyway

BTW, at every single step on that list, the people who are arguing for their type of denial will claim to be 'the reasonable one' and will also claim that they have always felt that way (even though they are moving the stages at varying speeds, some people are still at stage 1 (they're very very stupid) while others have prematurely moved to stage 10.

In reality, the situation is that some of the damage we have already done is already too late to avoid, this is bad, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still be working to prevent the worst possible outcome. Even if we were locked into a 2c rise in temperature by 2100, we should still be working tirelessly to prevent a 4c rise, if we're locked into a 4c rise, we should prevent a 6c rise etc.. because the hotter it gets, the worse it gets.

Akrasia

An extremely depressing Washington Post article describes a new study that shows a shocking crash in the number of insects around the world, including in even pristine rainforests.

In 2014, an international team of biologists estimated that, in the past 35 years, the abundance of invertebrates such as beetles and bees had decreased by 45 percent. In places where long-term insect data are available, mainly in Europe, insect numbers are plummeting. A study last year showed a 76 percent decrease in flying insects in the past few decades in German nature preserves.

This is being attributed to climate change and to a lesser extent, the use of pesticides

“This study in PNAS is a real wake-up call — a clarion call — that the phenomenon could be much, much bigger, and across many more ecosystems,” said David Wagner, an expert in invertebrate conservation at the University of Connecticut who was not involved with this research. He added: “This is one of the most disturbing articles I have ever read.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1e19a16ac688

It's a horribly depressing article if anyone has the stomach to read it.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

An extremely depressing Washington Post article describes a new study that shows a shocking crash in the number of insects around the world, including in even pristine rainforests.

It's a horribly depressing article if anyone has the stomach to read it.

Have you considered seeking professional help?

I'm not being facetious now, but I think you need to be open to the idea of seeking help about how you're dealing with these studies and media click bait.

It may be time for you to try to put yourself first and try not to be placing yourself in situations where you are tempted to seek out more stories of doom which are clearly having a pronounced adverse affect on your wellbeing.

Akrasia

Professional help from who?

You think experts are all bought and paid for by the commie new world order

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Professional help from who?

Help from a mental health practitioner.

Akrasia wrote: »

You think experts are all bought and paid for by the commie new world order

See this is what I'm talking about.


If the "science" is affecting you this much, and it is, maybe it's time to get some help?

You're coming across as suffering from climate anxiety.

Understanding climate anxiety, and how to incorporate psychology into our plans for tackling climate change is growing, but only slowly. A significant barrier, however, is inherent in the problem — we won’t, or don’t know how to, talk about it.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-09-21/psychologists-explain-our-climate-change-anxiety/

Water John

Crikey, you do get into some waffle.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Help from a mental health practitioner.

See this is what I'm talking about.


If the "science" is affecting you this much, and it is, maybe it's time to get some help?

You're coming across as suffering from climate anxiety.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-09-21/psychologists-explain-our-climate-change-anxiety/

Why do you trust mental health professionals but not the overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do you trust mental health professionals but not the overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change?

Christ on a bike Akrasia, you're obviously in need of some sort of help, you're not denying that, but stop trying to turn your reticence to engage with someone who can give it to you back on me.

It's your brain that's been fried by all the messages of doom and catastrophe, no one else's.

Look after the brain, it's the only one you have.

Second, whats this waffle about the "overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change"?

Any global professional data to back up this overwhelming nonsense?

dense

dense wrote: »

Christ on a bike Akrasia, you're obviously in need of some sort of help, you're not denying that, but stop trying to turn your reticence to engage with someone who can give it to you back on me.

It's your brain that's been fried by all the messages of doom and catastrophe, no one else's.

Look after the brain, it's the only one you have.

Second, whats this waffle about the "overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change"?

Any global professional data to back up this overwhelming nonsense?

The fog is thickening, will your theory ever meet terra firma. Meanwhile, NASA has been debunked as a hoax...cape and all.

2ndcoming

Get the feeling this is relevant here.

cnocbui

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do you trust mental health professionals but not the overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change?

Global warming is about as scientific as economics. I have a family member who's a scientist and thinks this climate nonsense is a drastic blow to real science and the scientific method.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

Global warming is about as scientific as economics. I have a family member who's a scientist and thinks this climate nonsense is a drastic blow to real science and the scientific method.

Ok, what kind of scientist is your family member and do you think he/she has the appropriate expertise to overthrow the findings of the worlds most respected scientific bodies with the capacity to review all of the relevant evidence?

Climate change/global warming is extremely robust science based on thousands of scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals replicating and testing each others findings and correcting errors and biases as they get discovered.

Science, fundamentally, is about creating predictive models of reality and then testing them against measurements and hypothesis. Climate scientists have the physics of the greenhouse effect figured out for about a century now. That model is nailed on. The only uncertainties are in the feedbacks caused by the additional warming we are inevitably causing by increasing the greenhouse effect.

Climate scientists have been studying these varying feedbacks for decades in thousands of independent studies and papers competing with each other to refine the parameters and they converge on a consensus and a range of probabilities for how the biosphere will react to an atmosphere with a doubling of CO2 concentrations (climate sensitivity)

For example, Berkley Earth was founded by scientists who found merit in the arguments of climate skeptics so they created their own independent global temperature analysis and when faced with the data, they changed their minds and are now fully on board with the consensus view on climate change. http://berkeleyearth.org/about/

Of the thousands of studies, a very small number of them contradict the established consensus. This is the last refuge of the climate skeptic. They're happy to ignore 97% of papers that produce results that they don't like, and pretend that the >3% of papers that say something they do agree with must be the correct papers. Does this sound like a scientific approach? Ignore the vast swath of evidence in favour of the outliers that support a contrarian viewpoint?

What would a proper scientist do to establish if the >3% of papers are more valid than the other 97% of papers? Test them of course! Attempt to replicate the findings, scrutinise their methodology. And this is what this paper did in 2015

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Ironically, the denser climate change skeptics seem to think that any adjustments to 'the science' is proof of a conspiracy. In fact, adjusting data is the entire methodology of science. All science is an approximation of the truth. As we understand more, we refine our theories and understanding to closer approximate the truth.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Christ on a bike Akrasia, you're obviously in need of some sort of help, you're not denying that, but stop trying to turn your reticence to engage with someone who can give it to you back on me.

It's your brain that's been fried by all the messages of doom and catastrophe, no one else's.

Look after the brain, it's the only one you have.

I'm ignoring your blatant attempts to derail this thread

Second, whats this waffle about the "overwhelming majority of professional scientists working in fields relevant to climate change"?

Any global professional data to back up this overwhelming nonsense?

How about practically every single university science department and scientific body with any reputation in the entire world agreeing with the consensus?

I've asked you before to find me a single reputable university or scientific institute in the world who agrees with your views on climate change. You never provided a single one. I doubt this time will be any different.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

Ironically, the denser climate change skeptics seem to think that any adjustments to 'the science' is proof of a conspiracy. In fact, adjusting data is the entire methodology of science. All science is an approximation of the truth. As we understand more, we refine our theories and understanding to closer approximate the truth.

This concept of science seems to be causing people huge issues in recent years. People seem to think that because there's methodologies and numbers then things are super exact and inflexible. Even a basic understanding of what science is should cover that it's ever evolving. Or I guess to be more precise, science doesn't change, our understanding of it does.

cnocbui

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, what kind of scientist is your family member and do you think he/she has the appropriate expertise to overthrow the findings of the worlds most respected scientific bodies with the capacity to review all of the relevant evidence?

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

So they're an engineer not a scientist?

cnocbui

xckjoo wrote: »

So they're an engineer not a scientist?

Well that confirms what I think about climate alarmists.

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

Well that confirms what I think about climate alarmists.

I'm trying to determine if you know there's a difference between the disciplines. Still don't know. In the spirit of openness, I also have a PhD in Electrical Engineering and most of my family are scientists and academics (I'm the black sheep being and engineer ). None of the accomplishments you listed are particularly spectacular when you're in the area. I'd expect all those (bar the foreign language skills) if they're lecturing.



Anyway, you're talking through your arse. I'm not sure what's your opinion and what belongs to your mate, but you can of course apply scientific protocol to climate analysis. The difficulty is the complexity of the modelling since there's so many continuous systems feeding into it. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's incorrect or not worth doing.

Jelle1880

cnocbui wrote: »

Well that confirms what I think about climate alarmists.

Not sure why you would mention that he is a mechanical engineer.
Those aren't exactly scientists, let alone climate scientists.

So unless he has a degree in that then his point has no more value than your average guy in the street.

cnocbui

xckjoo wrote: »

So they're an engineer not a scientist?

xckjoo wrote: »

I'm trying to determine if you know there's a difference between the disciplines. Still don't know. In the spirit of openness, I also have a PhD in Electrical Engineering and most of my family are scientists and academics (I'm the black sheep being and engineer ). None of the accomplishments you listed are particularly spectacular when you're in the area. I'd expect all those (bar the foreign language skills) if they're lecturing.



Anyway, you're talking through your arse. I'm not sure what's your opinion and what belongs to your mate, but you can of course apply scientific protocol to climate analysis. The difficulty is the complexity of the modelling since there's so many continuous systems feeding into it. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's incorrect or not worth doing.

So you acknowledge you would expect someone who lectures in Electrical engineering would author and review papers? That being the case, why did you make the earlier stupid statement?

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

So you acknowledge you would expect someone who lectures in Electrical engineering would author and review papers? That being the case, why did you make the earlier stupid statement?

What? Can you rephrase that because it doesn't make sense?

Edit: Do you think all papers are science papers?

cnocbui

xckjoo wrote: »

What? Can you rephrase that because it doesn't make sense?

Edit: Do you think all papers are science papers?

Was your thesis adviser a 'scientist'?

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

Was your thesis adviser a 'scientist'?

No. Engineer....




I'd say spit out whatever you're trying to get at lad. One of us is not understanding something and right now it's looking like it's you

cnocbui

xckjoo wrote: »

No. Engineer....




I'd say spit out whatever you're trying to get at lad. One of us is not understanding something and right now it's looking like it's you

I don't believe you have a Phd in electrical engineering.

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't believe you have a Phd in electrical engineering.

That's okay. I'll struggle on. One day at a time.



I would advise you to look into the difference between scientists and engineers though. They aren't interchangeable and have very different approaches and objectives. Also, be wary of people that overstate their own intelligence. I'm not saying your mate is definitely doing this, but most engineering based postgrad students will have 2+ publications by year three and will regularly be asked to review papers. That's not ivy league stuff. If someone came to me and claimed to have debunked a whole area of science based on them understanding the data better than everybody else, then I'd probably weight their opinion lower than they rate their own....


P.S. IEEE membership is a subscription, not some kind of honorary title. Well they do have those as well, but I'd be surprised if your mate had one of those. He's probably a paying pleb like the rest of us

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Anyway, you're talking through your arse.

Doubt they are, but either way, you don't have any problem when George Lee or Akrasia talk out of their's.


And they've been doing an awful lot of it lately.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

Ok, so would your family member be happy if an atmospheric scientist with no background in electrical engineering read any of his published papers and declared that they were not worth the paper they're written on?

Do you think a climatologist is qualified to review cutting edge electrical engineering papers?

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

First of all, there are scientific disciplines that don't rely on experiments. It's hard to experiment on Astronomy. But what Astronomers do, is they model the universe and use those models to make predictions, and when their predictions are accurate, that's some of the most accurate scientific data known to man. We can predict eclipses thousands of years in the future. We can know the precise orbits of the known celestial bodies to such a precise degree that we can send spacecraft on intercept courses with comets and (crash)land on their surface years later.

Climatologists model the climate in much the same way astronomers model the solar system. they build models based on known data and historical observations, and then test them by running regression analysis to see if the models can predict the behaviour of the past, then we can confidently say that it is an accurate representation of the known climate system within a known margin of error.

Plus there are loads of sub disciplines that are experimental and go out there gathering data in the real world, making predictions and validating them against known results. Ice core samples are validated against known geological and local historical events for example. The literature is full of experts in these specialist fields debating each others findings and testing and validating their results so that over time, where there are errors in the methodology or results, they get identified and either resolved, or adjusted for in the data analysis.

And the underlying physics behind climate science is being experimented on. Ever since John Tyndall used experimentation to quantify the radiative properties of the various gasses in our atmosphere in 1859, there are countless other experiments to understand how the individual variables in our climate affect radiation absorption and the energy balance. Even CERN got in on the act with the Cloud experiments testing the impacts of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

Climate scientists take the results of all these experiments and use them as data parameters in their models to build a more complete representation of global climate.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Doubt they are, but either way, you don't have any problem when George Lee or Akrasia talk out of their's.


And they've been doing an awful lot of it lately.

No sign of a single university department or scientific institute of any note who supports your view yet Dense??

Didn't think so

Grayson

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

It's nothing like economics. There are experiments that can be done and thanks to our studies we have million, if not billions of years of climate history we can refer to. There are tens of thousands of climate scientists who are studying this and something like 98% are in agreement with the three core findings of the IEEE. They do use the scientific method. If you're not sure about the scientific method then I recommend you read Karl Popper or even just this link.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

btw, if you think climate science doesn't use the scientific method then you might as well dismiss astronomy and loads of other sciences because they are heavily observant on observations.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

No sign of a single university department or scientific institute of any note who supports your view yet Dense??

Didn't think so

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD