Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is Hoax pt 10

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:12:09

onlooker wrote:Well, I for one believe the scientists and science and not crackpot theories and canards put out by politized entities


Says a bona fide sucker for peak oil doom, even AFTER peak oil happened..

Image
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Cog » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:14:23

Climate scientists, are in the majority, leftists. Whether it affects their science I will leave up to your imagination.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:21:40

Cog wrote:Climate scientists, are in the majority, leftists. Whether it affects their science I will leave up to your imagination.


That isn't my personal experience.

While colleges and universities are by and large dominated by leftists, the science departments are not.

And scientific instruments obviously have no political bias----for instance when measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are made, those numbers are just the numbers. No politics are involved.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Cog » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:24:35

Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:30:45

Cog wrote:Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.


There do seem to have been some instances where numbers have been fudged and/or rearranged. And its not just in climate science---scientists working on all sorts of things have been caught fudging data.

On the bright side scientists have to "show their work" so the numbers are usually available to other scientists, who eventually catch the fudging.

Thats the nice thing about science. Even though scientists are fallible human beings, and a few are definitely dishonest or politically biased, much like other humans in other lines or work, the numbers themselves don't lie. A gravimeter on the ICESAT satellite measuring ice mass loss in Antarctica is just collecting data---the finding that the ice sheet is shrinking is just a snapshot of reality---no politics involved. An array of thermometers lowered into the ocean is just reading the temperature---the finding that the ocean is warming is just a fact.

Image

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:38:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby GHung » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:38:23

Cog wrote:Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.


Since scientists reputations depend on their papers being peer reviewed, that would be pretty rare. The quickest way to lose their jobs is to falsify data. The same was true when I was a working engineer. Indeed, the only job I was ever fired from was when I refused to put my stamp on work I knew to be incomplete and that contained false and questionable data. They just made stuff up to complete the designs and get paid. It would have been my ass when that was discovered.

The vast majority of scientists will cover their career asses rather than make stuff up to support their theories. They've worked far too hard to get there, and they know their work will be checked out, especially if their conclusions are controversial. Are there exceptions? Sure. So let's just, as I said above, invalidate them all. That's the idiotic thing to do.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:56:50

Plant- "The fatal flaw in the argument that you and Lomborg are making is that the problems with global warming get worse and worse through time as more and more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. By the time you go out 50-100 years from now we're going to be looking at sea level rise flooding parts of every coastal city in the world" Perfect response, amigo...mucho thanks. Your response perfectly captures the flaw in your thought process and that of so many others. The global population is doing little to save the lives of 50 million children under 5 yo even though it costs them almost nothing. But the same group will be willing to make huge sacrifices for billions who haven't been born yet? Sacrifices being made by billions the majority of whom won't be alive themselves to benefit from those sacrifices in "50 to 100 years"?t

Or put simply: how many of TPTB living in multi $million apartments in NYC will care more about parts of the city being flooded long after they are dead then they care about the 1.5 million kids under 5 that will die of easily preventable diarrhea in 2018? Really? Let me know when you get them signed up. LOL.

I don't mean to be so harsh but you make some rather indefensible assumptions IMHO. There is a long f*cking list of things that should be done that won't even be attempted.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 15:06:19

Have to agree with Rock's assessment. Between nihilism and altruism is where most people are. It is called practicality
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 18:17:08

The fire storms that swept through Napa Valley and environs didn't discriminate between the rich and the poor.

All are vulnerable.

Eventually, most will realize this.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 20:39:58

ROCKMAN wrote: how many of TPTB living in multi $million apartments in NYC will care more about parts of the city being flooded long after they are dead


Probably almost none.

ROCKMAN wrote: There is a long f*cking list of things that should be done that won't even be attempted.


Of course.

This is a long-standing problem in natural hazards mitigation. What kind of response should society make to relatively small hazards that occur frequently as opposed to much larger hazards that only occur rarely?

For the most part society ignores large but rare hazards. Thats why even an advanced society like Japan was caught flat-footed by the earthquake and tsunami. Its why volcanic eruptions continue to kill people even though volcanic process and hazards are fairly well understand. Things that only happen once every few hundred years are hard to prepare for, even when society knows what is coming.

Global Warming is even harder to prepare for then earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, because Global warming is really unprecedented. Nothing exactly like this has ever happened in the history of the earth, and we don't even know what is coming as global warming continues.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 14 Aug 2018, 13:08:24

"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby vox_mundi » Tue 14 Aug 2018, 14:59:50

This was settled over 5 years ago. Another attempt to confuse regional with global warming by a circle jerk of AGW denialists

Why the IPA's claim global warming is natural is 'junk science'

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

... evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.

All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.


Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Overall, conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

Image


Also, Consider the Sources:

Jennifer Marohasy (born 1963) is an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger. She was a senior fellow at the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs between 2004 and 2009 and director of the Australian Environment Foundation until 2008.She holds a PhD in biology from the University of Queensland. She is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming and co-authored a peer-reviewed paper in GeoResJ suggesting that most of the recent warming is attributable to natural variations.

The research was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. GeoResJ journal will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions.

The Australian Environment Foundation is a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a conservative Melbourne-based think tank.

The director of the environment unit of the IPA, Jennifer Marohasy was the founding Chairwoman and is listed as a Director in the organisation's documents with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Mahorasy is also the listed registrant of the group's website, although the address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia.

---------------------------------

... In a column by Nahan in the Herald-Sun, he described the Australian Environment Foundation as "pro-biotechnology, pro-nuclear power, pro-modern farming, pro-economic growth, pro-business and pro-environment."

Institute of Public Affairs (IPA): when it comes to climate change, IPA executive director John Roskam summed it up in this way (reported in Fairfax Media):
''Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one way or another,'' he says, listing some prominent figures on the local circuit. ''Ian Plimer - we launched his book - Bob Carter, Jo Nova, William Kininmonth.'
'
Indeed, in a comment on an obscure page on journalist Graham Redfearn's website, Roskam gloated about the IPA's role sowing doubt about credible, evidence based science:
'…in May The Sydney Morning Herald said that ‘Roskam has done more to fuel doubt about climate change than almost anyone in Australia.’ It would have been great if you had mentioned it.'


Australian MP George Christensen Heading To Las Vegas For Heartland Institute Climate Denial Conference

AN Australian Federal MP is planning to join some of the world’s noisiest deniers of the science of climate change at a conference in Las Vegas in a few weeks time.

George Christensen, the National Party member for Dawson in the coal-friendly state of Queensland, will be hanging around the Mandelay Bay Resort with a rag-tag bunch of mostly long-retired academics and well paid think-tank associates for the Heartland Institute conference, starting on 7 July.

The Heartland Institute, funded over the years by fossil fuel corporations and conservative philanthropists, is itself one of America’s loudest climate science denial organisations. This will be the organisation’s ninth gathering of climate sceptics, denialists and fossil fuel apologists.

In Parliament in February, Christensen downplayed a spate of “so-called record heat waves” by saying other parts of the globe had experienced “record cold”. In fact, according to the US National Climate Data Center, January 2014 was the globe’s fourth hottest since records began in 1880 and was the “347th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average”.

So where does Christensen get his ideas about climate change from?

One revealing document is Christensen’s Parliamentary expenses report from 2012 listing 11 climate change and environmental policy books bought by his office.

Titles include The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy Spencer; The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History by Christopher Booker and Killing The Earth To Save It: How Environmentalists Are Ruining The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Jobs by James Delingpole.

Six of the books were bought two months before Christensen was appointed by the then opposition to sit on a key committee to examine carbon price legislation.

Christensen’s office also bought 25 copies of Australian sceptic and mining entrepreneur Professor Ian Plimer’s book How To Get Expelled From School: A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.

During the two-day Las Vegas conference, Christensen is scheduled to join Patrick Michaels, of the Cato Institute and the author of another of those books, to present some awards.

Christensen is also listed to sit down with fellow Australians for a panel session on the “global warming debate in Australia”.

Christensen will be joined by one of his own constituents, Dr Bob Carter, a “science policy advisor” for the Melbourne-based climate science denialist think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Another panel member joining Christensen is Jennifer Marohasy, a former senior fellow with the IPA.

Marohasy is currently a research fellow at Central Queensland University — a post funded by the “B. Macfie Family Foundation”.

Bryant Macfie is a Perth-based philanthropist and climate science sceptic. In 2009 the university accepted $195,000 from Macfie and in 2012 the CQU annual report said he had renewed his “significant support”.

In 2008, Macfie made a $350,000 gift to another university – the University of Queensland – that was facilitated by the IPA and criticised by some UQ academics.

When making the donation, Macfie claimed science had been damaged by “environmental activism” and wrote, “the crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine”.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby jawagord » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 19:45:52

Clearly spelling isn't a requirement for the dubious doomer - SKEPTIC?

Peer review or "Pal" review is coming under attack from all directions. When something like 50% of peer review science research can't be replicated we should all be Skeptical!

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/doe ... than-good/

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educ ... ific-truth
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 03:55:04

jawagord wrote:Clearly spelling isn't a requirement for the dubious doomer - SKEPTIC?

Peer review or "Pal" review is coming under attack from all directions. When something like 50% of peer review science research can't be replicated we should all be Skeptical!

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/doe ... than-good/

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educ ... ific-truth

As always profit rules it seems even when it goes again the public good
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 12:56:34

According to NASA data 2018 temperature anomaly is cooler than 2017 which was cooler than 2016 the current apex for global temperature. 2018 is actually cooler than 2015 making is the lowest temperature in 4 years. What do the expert peak analysts think, has an inflection point been reached, are we on the downward slide? Does it really matter, the numbers are all made up, the earth has no single temperature?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 13:41:40

Statistically insignificant. If you look at the chart you see similar deviations, plus and minus, along the entire line. So this is nothing new. It may well just reflect the level of accuracy of the measurement. The long term trend still continues. Now if this trend were to continue for a few more years, add 3 or more Dara points then it would be significant.

But keel watching and get back to us in as the data develops.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 13:57:25

There are a bunch of nature deniers here at Peak Oil Dot Com. There have always been datasets that dispute the unproven theory of AGW. These folks would deny such exist, and then when such evidence is produced for examination and analysis, dispute it - purely because they decided that the theory was correct, and opposition to the theory must not be tolerated.

Of course, such behavior is anything but "scientific". :mrgreen:
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 15:21:39

KJ,

You make a post saying everyone will dispute you. But then say nothing about what you think. Pity party. Collecting injustices. Maybe people don’t agree with your position or you post bad data.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 16:02:29

Newfie, I must have posted links to the Earth-facing satellite dataset at least a half dozen times. You know, the satellite data that John R, Christy and Roy Spencer are in charge of at Huntsville, believed to be the most accurate upper atmosphere temperature dataset we have, but which do not match any of the existing climate models. That in fact show a cooling trend where the models indicate a warming should exist.

Recently, bullets were fired at their offices by eco-terrorists, who were angry that actual climate scientists dispute AGW.

I happen to believe that nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that any peak oil forum member posts about AGW, whether in dispute or support of the theory, is meaningful. Nor do most people ever get past "the greenhouse effect is real, so the AGW theory is correct" level of argument.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 04 Mar 2019, 16:39:18

Remarks below are not meant to deny CC motion, which I think is a reasonable one but I found it a very worrying trend to call plenty of nonsense recently published in many serious journals to be "scientific facts".
It is a sad situation that quality of scientific investigation is falling down in last decade or two.
A lot of garbage is being published in areas as different as high energy physics where micro black holes and additional dimensions were considered as some expected entities about to be found in LHC experiments.
All that seemed an utter nonsense for me from the start.
Thousands of die hards are struggling to deliver "Theory of Everything" out of current versions of string theories, despite that something like 10^265000 of different Calabi Yau manifolds might be unfolded out of those 10 or 11 dimensions and each needs separate investigation to assess its viability in our Universe. Good luck with a task.
We are also observing "Muliverse religion" grounded in unfounded beliefs that something was inflated in the past in one of countless possible ways. That is simply not falsifiable, eg not a science.

Chemistry is not in a better shape at all. Substantial numbers of garbage is published for example in organic chemistry area where non reproductible procedures are frequently published as working.
Reasonably skilled in the art reader of such publications can easily point out obvious errors on experimenter side so it is not surprise to him at all that published procedure cannot work even in theory. Degradation of skill is evident here.

There is a plenty of evidence that we are replacing proper scientific investigation with wishful thinking, pressure to publish that something was discovered even if it wasn't and similar other fraudulent practices.
On the top of it there is a dramatic decay of skill of new waves of "scientists".
For example younger chemists are displaying abyssymal level of knowledge and lack of ability to work with relatively simple chemicals in safe and productive manner, what was unseen 20 or 30 years ago.

My observations are suggesting that our society is transforming from a reasonably educated one to something what resembles idiocracy.
"Science" operating in such society should always be taken with a grain of salt and treated with suspicion until proven otherwise.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests