Page 9 of 24

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 15:46:13
by GHung
KJ said; " It will never ever enter your pointy little heads that you are professing the Faith of the True Believer, or that this is anything but Scientific."

Thanks for the laugh, KJ. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a more elaborate case of a pot calling kettles black, and there's no point in suggesting that you suffer from the same affliction in spades, because pots don't listen very well. But hang on tight to your superiority complex. It makes you who you are, and I wouldn't change a thing.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 15:47:23
by Hawkcreek
KaiserJeep wrote:PS to the above: Now is when many PO.com members are so profoundly upset with my Heretical suggestions about the infallibility of the great god Science that they claim to be putting me on their "Ignore" list, although most eventually re-enter the fray.

Relax, KJ. I would never put you on ignore. We all have a right to our beliefs and opinions. And yours are usually politely stated (relatively), much more than some of the other posters here. That counts for a lot with me.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 16:29:33
by Ibon
Hawkcreek wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:PS to the above: Now is when many PO.com members are so profoundly upset with my Heretical suggestions about the infallibility of the great god Science that they claim to be putting me on their "Ignore" list, although most eventually re-enter the fray.

Relax, KJ. I would never put you on ignore. We all have a right to our beliefs and opinions. And yours are usually politely stated (relatively), much more than some of the other posters here. That counts for a lot with me.


Yes. +1

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 16:53:58
by GHung
Yes, +2. Nothing is better than being talked down to politely.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 18:25:20
by dissident
As seen above we have the typical political debate. Facts are discounted outright and the same tired claims repeated ad nauseam. Denying climate change and the impact of chemical composition on the atmosphere-ocean system is equivalent to denying the existence of gravity. It is that level of absurdity. People who peddle such delusion/ignorance and are militant about it deserve derision and it is their opinions and claims that need outright dismissal instead of coddling based on some sort of "fairness" policy.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 18:37:48
by Hawkcreek
dissident wrote:As seen above we have the typical political debate. Facts are discounted outright and the same tired claims repeated ad nauseam. Denying climate change and the impact of chemical composition on the atmosphere-ocean system is equivalent to denying the existence of gravity. It is that level of absurdity. People who peddle such delusion/ignorance and are militant about it deserve derision and it is their opinions and claims that need outright dismissal instead of coddling based on some sort of "fairness" policy.

Relax - dismiss the claims, but pretend you are at a party. I can still be polite when I go to a party, and have someone try to tell me what I should think. I just smile and internally mark him down on my kill list (for when the apocalypse hits). :-D
Then have another drink.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2016, 19:51:55
by KaiserJeep
dissident wrote:As seen above we have the typical political debate. Facts are discounted outright and the same tired claims repeated ad nauseam. Denying climate change and the impact of chemical composition on the atmosphere-ocean system is equivalent to denying the existence of gravity. It is that level of absurdity. People who peddle such delusion/ignorance and are militant about it deserve derision and it is their opinions and claims that need outright dismissal instead of coddling based on some sort of "fairness" policy.


You know, I could change a few words and reverse the above paragraph.

Who said I have ever denied CC or that the world is warming? Certainly not me. In fact, I said so more than once in this thread. So for you and others who are having comprehension problems, here it is again:

The world has been warming for 15,000 years, since the Pleistocene Glacial. It has another approximately 10 degrees C to warm before the peak or "Climatic Optimum" and is likely to get there in something between 200 and 2000 years, based on the evidence of derived temperatures and glacial/interglacial data in the fossil record, where evidence of at least 262 glacial cycles are found. Meanwhile, sea levels will rise, the temperate zones will move North, the permafrost will melt into muskeg, the Northern icecap may disappear entirely, and all of these things are completely natural.

The FF burning by mankind may be accelerating this process. At least that is the opinion of 94% of the IPCC Climatologists who published AR5, which is a small change from AR4, where 97% were in agreement with the report. Meanwhile 3% dissented with AR4 and 6% dissented with AR5. Plus any number of Climatologists who were not on the IPCC list of authors. Simply put, I am a dissenter who agrees with the minority opinion, at the IPCC and here at PO.com.

Note that the IPCC and the erudite member Climatologists don't use absolutes. Not like the PO.com members do, and not like some such as you who suggest that people who disagree with your opinions should be verbally abused, treated with disrespect, perhaps arrested and prosecuted for their beliefs. This was all hashed through a couple of years ago in a thread entitled "Should We Arrest Climate Change Deniers?". Within that thread, some members advocated arrest, prosecution, and even summary execution of "deniers". Predictably, we then went through another thread where we discussed Fascism. Perhaps you should search out and read those threads, most of us have no interest in re-hashing these topics.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 01:50:42
by careinke
KaiserJeep wrote:One thing that I must point out is that few if any of you, "know" about climate change, AGW, whatever you call it.

You have Faith in the priests in white lab coats, who are preaching the gospel of AGW, and calling carbon dioxide the devil. You have not personally cranked through a climate model, you actually don't know from any observations or calculations or anything else that CC and AGW are real.


1. Find a current graph of global temps for the past 20,000 years or so. 2. Put your finger on the temperature shown for the latest date. 3. Look for another date with a higher temperature. Now you have your proof that CC is real. See that wasn't so hard.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 05:01:12
by KaiserJeep
Why do I bother to even talk, I wonder? Read the message directly above yours. The climate changes all the time, and is in a 15,000 year warming trend, since the Ice Age. Not only does that not prove the AGW theory, it's completely normal, and evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 06:53:08
by Ibon
When we were putting together our hydro system in Panama I was fortunate to have a retired hydro engineer from Colombia volunteer his time to help us. He was enormously helpful but also frustrating in his tedious demands for exact measurements that often provided little utility. Sometimes engineers are so singularly faithful to their precision that common sense utility is sacrificed. This is perhaps a bad analogy when comparing this to climate change modeling. I assume KJ that the computer design elements you mention that are lacking to model climate change are a different matter since these missing components create errors that increase exponentially through time when dealing with the level of complexity inherent in climate modeling.

That does not mean that we just sit back and take no action until computer modeling can handle the task. That is like saying 5 years before doppler radar was implemented that we shouldn't rely on weather forecasts because the modeling is still inaccurate.

A better analogy would be evolution. Charles Darwin and Wallace, through empirical evidence discovered natural selection. They did not know back then about DNA and chromosomes and how selection was actually carried forth through generations but they did see the consequences. A lack of tools or modeling or knowledge of DNA did not prevent them from making their discovery.

You are arguing here that there are no models that can tease out the Anthro portion of climate change from the background warming that is naturally occurring. And so all the emperical evidence that scientists are publishing should simply be discarded until models can prove if they are right or wrong? Science does not work that way. You don't wait for the engineering or the computer models to catch up especially when there is enough empirical evidence to draw pretty accurate "fuzzy" conclusions.

There is something desperate about your resistance here as I see it which is why I concluded it has something to do with your political ideology, anger at the sanctimoniousness of progressives or environmentalists.You did not comment on this so I will now ask you, was I on target on that or completely off base?

It's ironic because when I try to nail this same bias on the other side of the political spectrum, pointing out to Dohboi or Cid how their own political ideology affects their own interpretation of data in forecasting near extinction in the short term, they squirm as well.

It seems we got some really squirmy posters here who struggle with this topic, that is for sure!!!!

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 07:05:51
by dohboi
The guy just strings lie after lie together, and we're supposed to be nice to him? All the time pompously purporting to be the only one who is able to assess anything anywhere accurately... It's beyond obnoxious.

I do think that he is expressing what many Trump supporters think they are doing--giving the political system a 'purgative.' But in fact, they are giving the democracy a strong poison.

The latest obfuscation is the claim that we are in a long term warming trend, which is total BS.

Obviously, coming out of the last ice age involved a good deal of warming, but since about 8000 years ago, the earth had been gradually cooling at about -.1 degree C per millennium, probably moving very slowly toward the next ice age. But now, just in the last hundred years or so, and especially in the last fifty, we are warming very, very rapidly, with a lot more warming to come:

Image

Anyone can see that taking those first couple thousand years coming out of the ice age as an indication that the entire stretch of 10,000 years is a warming trend is just idiotic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -holocene/

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:00:55
by KaiserJeep
So doughboy posts a meaningless graph that covers half the period since the last Glacial, so that he can demonstrate that the overall warming thread is non existent. Miss.

Then that same graph switches datasets so that they can demonstrate a sharp increase in temperature (the infamous Al Gore "hockey stick") right at the end. Double miss.

I don't want to debate AGW and temperatures yet again. We have done that already. I favor the temperature graphs made from the Earth-facing datasets from satellites, as published by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. The reason I like them is that these two scientists are using satellite sensors called PRTs (Platinum Resistance Thermometers) which were calibrated from laboratory reference standards before the satellite was launched.

Spencer and Roy do not massage data, they simply report Earth surface temperatures, measured from orbit by as many as fourteen satellites, which pretty much can see almost all of the globe at all times. They report a slow warming trend that is actually slightly below the Milankovitch predictions. They don't "correct" data to turn localized cooling into warming, they don't alter temperatures "to account for the urban heat island effect", and they don't cheat by any other means, either. The AGW crowd is replete with scandals, and the doughboy just tried to slime us again.

End of story.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:04:24
by Revi
We are heading for warmer than in the past 350,000 years. It might be just a blip, but it might be warm enough to cook us off the planet. We'll see. Modern humans have only been around for 200,000, so we're turning up the heat in our cage.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:28:07
by KaiserJeep
Revi wrote:We are heading for warmer than in the past 350,000 years. It might be just a blip, but it might be warm enough to cook us off the planet. We'll see. Modern humans have only been around for 200,000, so we're turning up the heat in our cage.


But Revi, the satellite temperatures don't support your assertion. Here is Spencer's latest chart (September 2016):
Image
...which shows +0.44 degrees C in 37 years of satellite observations. That is well within the bounds of the Milankovitch predictions, and if this trend continues, we will reach the average and typical Climatic Optimum temperature (+10 degrees C from today) in 840 years. (Milankovitch bounds are 200 to 2000 years.)

Are you suggesting that + 10 degrees C will happen faster than 200 years? Not many AGW modellers are saying that. Are you saying that we will warm higher than 10 degrees C above today? Not many AGW modellers say that either.

To be fair, there is variability in the Milankovitch prediction of the Climatic Optimum, and that is really +10 degrees C +/- 4 degrees C. The AGW theories and Milankovitch both use temperatures derived from fossil data, which I don't trust. Integrating satellite thermometers pointed at one entire hemisphere of the globe, I do trust.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:39:46
by Hawkcreek
KaiserJeep wrote:I don't want to debate AGW and temperatures yet again. We have done that already. I favor the temperature graphs made from the Earth-facing datasets from satellites, as published by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. The reason I like them is that these two scientists are using satellite sensors called PRTs (Platinum Resistance Thermometers) which were calibrated from laboratory reference standards before the satellite was launched.

Spencer and Roy do not massage data, they simply report Earth surface temperatures, measured from orbit by as many as fourteen satellites, which pretty much can see almost all of the globe at all times. They report a slow warming trend that is actually slightly below the Milankovitch predictions. They don't "correct" data to turn localized cooling into warming, they don't alter temperatures "to account for the urban heat island effect", and they don't cheat by any other means, either. The AGW crowd is replete with scandals, and the doughboy just tried to slime us again./quote]


These scientists are also using a model to develop their temperatures. Take a look at the video in this http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/some-of-the-issues-with-satell/54879902

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 12:10:41
by KaiserJeep
I'm familiar with that argument, Hawk. I wouldn't call the modified Black Body radiation measured by the satellites an "algorithm", either. Black Body radiation - and the Gray Body modifications we are talking about here, are not derived from anything. When you measure the BB or GB radiance of an object in space, you get a single value for the temperature in degrees Kelvin. Then you convert those to degrees Centigrade.

Nor do active satellite orbits "decay" as Dr. Moore claims. They have onboard fuel that they use for station-keeping for their useful lives. When the fuel is exhausted and they can no longer keep station, they are allowed to burn up, and typically are used for other purposes and other research during the decay period. Working for NASA, Spencer and Roy use only current and active satellite data. Dr. Moore is revealed as yet another AGW modeller whose work the satellite measurements have cast doubts upon.

This is really tiresome stuff. I am convinced that no amount of disputing evidence, no data about the slow warming due to orbital mechanics, and nothing I can ever say will change the minds of people whose god is Science and whose prophet is AGW. So I'm done doing that in this thread.

Because you see, I also believe in Science, in all it's intricacies, as a human tool for understanding the universe, and not as something to be revered.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 12:41:55
by Cid_Yama
KJ, it would be easier to just direct us to WUWT, rather than try and bring all that crap over here. We have no doubt you are a true believer of this nonsense. But it has all been debunked on here for years, over and over again.

This is looking like desperation on your part as reality is about to bring your world down crashing.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 12:49:03
by dohboi
[smilie=eusa_clap.gif]

Also, we have already passed the Holocene Optimum, as my graph above shows, and we are now headed into global temperatures never seen since human long before human civilization started (basically the Eemian) and soon to be in temperature ranges not seen since before modern humans evolved (Pliocene), and it gets worse from there.

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:48:27
by kiwichick
look guys KJ is obviously beyond help.......please don't feed the trolls!!

Re: When it's over, it's over, it's over,it's over

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Oct 2016, 18:28:50
by dissident
To add to your point about the "ice age", dohboi, one of the problems is terminology. We should still be in an ice age and heading for another slow ramp to a glaciation maximum. People call these glacial maxima "ice ages" which is not correct and misleading since it implies that they come an "end" every 100,000 years. To be fair the labels pleistocene and holocene are not physically consistent too. The last 11,700 years has been just another inter-glacial period to be followed by yet more glaciation. CO2 in the 300 ppmv range is associated with ice age conditions with the current global land mass distribution and volcanic activity level. We have been in an ice age for 3.3 million years.

But 490 ppmv CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas concentrations are no longer consistent with an ice age. It is looking more and more likely that the climate will be disrupted by humans for the next 100,000+ years. Not 200 years based on the mythological constant residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and not 10,000 years as some initial assessments based on moderate CO2 increases estimated (see the papers by David Archer). Not only is the current civilization screwed, any subsequent one is screwed too over a time span that is enough observe evolution in animals. Make no mistake, humanity, if it survives will be a different species by the time the pollution dumped by homo sapiens works its way out of the system.