SURVEY: Manmade Global Climate Change -- Fact or Fiction?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The people who don't have the kahunas to talk about population growth are overwhelmingly come from the right wing. It's not the democrats who are proposing to defund Planned Parenthood or threatening to cut off funding from all family planning groups overseas who have any connection to abortion at all.

And who from the left has anything to say?

It is not a vote winner.

There is an excellent documentary presented (and I think written) by Sir David Attenborough.

BBC (left wing) showed it once and buried it.

PostBag had a good letter about it on Monday by John Kane.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, zappalot said:

It all has been occurring for billions of years and over the past few thousand years.

 

Right.

 

Yet people with open eyes see a difference here...

I see the difference. A trace gas in the atmosphere at 200 ppm, and although it has doubled it is still a trace gas in the atmosphere. As a total percent of all the elements in the atmosphere how much has CO2 increased (hint nitrogen should be a higher percentage by multiple orders of magnitude).

Edited August 1, 2017 by Ahab
Clarity

[ilostmypassword]

On 7/31/2017 at 8:04 AM, Ahab said:

Predictions based on modeling of complex systems, with many unknown variables will never be "science". Science needs experimentation and observations to be validated, and a computer model (no matter how high tech) will never be a substitute for this.  It is a only guess based on the best available guess on what the input parameters should be, and how much affect each input parameter has over temperature, and this will never be accurate to 0.01 degrees a century from now, no matter how powerful a supercomputer is used. The theory is that CO2 has increased and this increase will/has caused temperature changes. The problem that I have is that CO2 levels continue to rise but temperatures have not risen a corresponding amount in the last twenty years or so.  Observations I can buy, computer models spitting out results for 50 or 100 years from now.... not so much.

Educate yourself.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see the difference. A trace gas in the atmosphere at 200 ppm, and although it has doubled it is still a trace gas in the atmosphere. As a total percent of all the elements in the atmosphere how much has CO2 increased (hint nitrogen should be a higher percentage by multiple orders of magnitude).

I know what you mean. Next they'll be saying that small quantities of cyanide can be fatal...

" A fatal dose for humans can be as low as 1.5 mg/kg body weight."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_poisoning

But you and I know better.

[Ahab]

54 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Educate yourself.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

I read your link, the responses to it are more interesting. A famous modeling expert once said " all models are wrong, but sometimes they are useful", trying to provide useful/accurate inputs into a complex model that is trying to predict the temperature 100 years from now is not useful. I don't doubt that the scientists are trying their best to get the inputs correct, but the amount of unknown or not well understood inputs combined with the potential variables of these inputs make this an impossible task.

 

I have worked with large complex models in my prior job producing Environmental Impact Statements for the U.S. Navy. They are at best an educated guess at what is actually occurring because all the variables CANNOT be known. How many large models do the other posters on this topic have experience using and working with? From the comments to date I would guess little to none.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Ahab
Clarity

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Educate yourself.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

I read your link, the responses to it are more interesting. A famous modeling expert once said " all models are wrong, but sometimes they are useful", trying to provide useful/accurate inputs into a complex model that is trying to predict the temperature 100 years from now is not useful. I don't doubt that the scientists are trying their best to get the inputs correct, but the amount of unknown or not well understood inputs combined with the potential variables of these inputs make this an impossible task.

 

I have worked with large complex models in my prior job producing Environmental Impact Statements for the U.S. Navy. They are at best an educated guess at what is actually occurring because all the variables CANNOT be known. How many large models do the other posters on this topic have? From the comments to date I would guess little to none.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Ahab said:

I read your link, the responses to it are more interesting. A famous modeling expert once said " all models are wrong, but sometimes they are useful", trying to provide useful/accurate inputs into a complex model that is trying to predict the temperature 100 years from now is not useful. I don't doubt that the scientists are trying their best to get the inputs correct, but the amount of unknown or not well understood inputs combined with the potential variables of these inputs make this an impossible task.

 

I have worked with large complex models in my prior job producing Environmental Impact Statements for the U.S. Navy. They are at best an educated guess at what is actually occurring because all the variables CANNOT be known. How many large models do the other posters on this topic have? From the comments to date I would guess little to none.

Let's put it another way. The last 50 years have seen the fastest rise in temperature for the last 65 million years. The odds of this being a coincidence are about 1 in 1.5 million. I guess all those climate scientists just got amazingly lucky.

[Ahab]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Let's put it another way. The last 50 years have seen the fastest rise in temperature for the last 65 million years. The odds of this being a coincidence are about 1 in 1.5 million. I guess all those climate scientists just got amazingly lucky.

65 million years, with actual temperature measured and recorded for the only last 100 years or so.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Ahab said:

65 million years, with actual temperature measured and recorded for the only last 100 years or so.

I'm not going to bother to show you how scientists figure out these things. You could look it up of course. Clearly you have an ideological commitment to your position and no amount of evidence is going to change that.

[Ahab]

Think about this another way, in the mid 1970s the scientific community was predicting global cooling and a coming ice age. So I guess if you are oscillating between a coming ice age and a global heat catastrophe at some point your predictions will be spot on. 

 

"Even a broken clock is correct twice a day" and "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then" come to mind.

 

In the end it doesn't matter because no one is willing to limit CO2 emissions enough to make any difference. Not Kyoto, not Paris, not any of the climate change agreements. So since it doesn't matter, and I cannot do anything about it, and there is a chance that it will not happen anyway, I will continue to live my life as I have.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm not going to bother to show you how scientists figure out these things. You could look it up of course. Clearly you have an ideological commitment to your position and no amount of evidence is going to change that.

I already know how they estimate the past temperatures, so no show and tell is required.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I already know how they estimate the past temperatures, so no show and tell is required.

Given your analysis of the effects of CO2 which essentially boiled down to "How could something so small have an effect so big?",  I trust you will pardon my skepticism.

[DM07]

A poll...about something, that 97% of all relevant scientists agree upon and some oil company sponsored hags and some conspiracy theorists are fighting against!

Yupp...makes sense!

 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, DM07 said:

A poll...about something, that 97% of all relevant scientists agree upon and some oil company sponsored hags and some conspiracy theorists are fighting against!

Yupp...makes sense!

 

And it should be pointed out that before oil companies were human caused global warming deniers, they were human caused global warming supporters. Some of the earliest work on this subject was done by their scientists. And yet, the deniers accuse climate scientists of supporting human caused global warming out of self interest while remaining remarkably blind to the about face of big oil.

[berrec]

Folks, let me first declare my position, I believe in natural CC, it’s been happening for millions of years and it will continue to happen for many millions of years more.

 

And on the CC topic at hand we are only talking about CO2; carbon dioxide is a colorless gas consisting of carbon and oxygen. It occurs naturally in the atmosphere.

 

Look at the article survey results to date; it's approaching 50 /50, why? because the topic is caught between a rock and a hard place and why?

 

We as humans have an opinion based on the information and the attained knowledge we develop from that information.

 

There as two types of scientific information, subjective and objective. 

 

The danger for both types (for  & against)  of all this CC information is, the Volume, Variety, Velocity, Veracity, Value, Volatility, Variance and finally the Validity of CC information (data). 

 

It's a dog's breakfast; metrics and statistics can be collected universally and massaged and presented in any science forum to be biased towards a desired outcome.

 

If you’re for CC, the big bucks of government funding in keeping the faithful gravy train going is a desirable goal, if you’re not for CC,  there are also big bucks again in presenting your findings to the CC deniers on sponsored and funded globetrotting conferences.

 

The death nail in any science conclusion statement like, the science is settled or 97% of world scientists agree are IMHO a mixture of both subjective and objective in context and as such is not conclusive of a scientific bulletproof outcome.  

 

And please, don’t intermix environmental pollution with CC, they are not the same and many CC faithful like falling back on this position to justify their opinion.

 

So who’s right, whatever your informed opinion is!

 

But ask the question, if the UN redistributes the wealth of first world countries to third world countries under the Paris CC agreement, how much will global temperatures be lower by.

 

If countries meet their future emission targets as indicated in the Paris CC agreement, how much will global temperatures be lowered by? 

 

Anyone…………….got an idea, go on take a guess.

 

What about a suggested target number like 0.048°C, ok let’s be generous, we will concede and make it 0.10°C.

 

<deleted> does minus 0.10 degrees centigrade make on any effective differences based on  CC theories and initiatives on significantly lowering global temperatures. NONE!

 

So round one the Global Warming strategy failed, what to do, rebrand it as Climate Change for round two, what’s on the books for round three, who knows, great marketing strategy from the CC faithful.

 

Do we really want to destroy global economies with ineffective high cost solutions like wind generators and solar panels, cause when the wind don’t blow (or to hard) and the sun don’t shine, we're screwed.

 

Members of the flat earth society claim to believe the Earth is flat; the belief that the Earth is flat has been described as the ultimate conspiracy theory, why because as individuals they have an opinion!

 

OMG the weather bureau forecasters with all their computer models, technology and weather pattern history cannot even predict the weather for next week accurately. 

 

My views on manmade CC are just my opinion!

 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Let's put it another way. The last 50 years have seen the fastest rise in temperature for the last 65 million years. The odds of this being a coincidence are about 1 in 1.5 million. I guess all those climate scientists just got amazingly lucky.

Who was taking the measurements 65m years ago?

The ice cores cannot tell that back so far. The graph goes back to 800k not 65m.

Are you being scientific or just "Green".

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by George FmplesdaCosteedback