Staggering climate contradiction - data that can be fudged says "warming," data that cannot be fudged says "no warming"

[Dagosa]

What the fuck do you think I deny? I admit climate changes. I admit it snows more now. I admit here it is colder than normal. I admit a lot of things.

Stupidity overwhelms you. No shit. What you never admit pea brain, is the RATE at which it is changing is accelerating in the warming trend we have been in. That’s what AGW is about. You’re a simpleton or you’re dishonest or both.
That’s fine, you have a right to remain ignorant. But you can’t stop lying about our science based institutions being frauds when it’s you who are the fraud.

 

[Dagosa]

You're off to the realm of delusional gibberish.

Either your brain is fried and/or you need to lay off the booze and drugs.

You still can’t name any science based institutions that support you, can you ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fraud denier. If there was any proof, the science community would have the evidence not conservative think tanks.

Conservatives think, Progressives bleat.

Can you post the experiment showing any temperature increase by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM?

 

[Dagosa]

Conservatives think, Progressives bleat.

Can you post the experiment showing any temperature increase by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM?

Being totally oblivious to what AGW is about, means your posts are irrelevant…it’s about the rate at which the warming trend is occurring, not that it’s warming. We are coming out of an ice age, faster in the last 200 years than at anytime modern man has been on earth. It’s simple. If you don’t believe or understand evolution, you probably don’t understand AGW.
Btw, WHERE do you get YOUR numbers. Name and link your source.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Being totally oblivious to what AGW is about, means your posts are irrelevant…it’s about the rate at which the warming trend is occurring, not that it’s warming. We are coming out of an ice age, faster in the last 200 years than at anytime modern man has been on earth. It’s simple. If you don’t believe or understand evolution, you probably don’t understand AGW.
Btw, WHERE do you get YOUR numbers. Name and link your source

Not surprisingly, you did NOT answer the basic scientific question, the same one skeptics have been asking since the Climate Cult first cam into being: How must temperature increase is cause when you control all variable except for increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

We've never gotten a numerical answer.

And we strongly suspect that the answer is something like .002F "increase" in temperature

 

[Robert W]

Stupidity overwhelms you. No shit. What you never admit pea brain, is the RATE at which it is changing is accelerating in the warming trend we have been in. That’s what AGW is about. You’re a simpleton or you’re dishonest or both.
That’s fine, you have a right to remain ignorant. But you can’t stop lying about our science based institutions being frauds when it’s you who are the fraud.

You are a person that loves a fight. And if none is offered, you invent them.

 

[Robert W]

Being totally oblivious to what AGW is about, means your posts are irrelevant…it’s about the rate at which the warming trend is occurring, not that it’s warming. We are coming out of an ice age, faster in the last 200 years than at anytime modern man has been on earth. It’s simple. If you don’t believe or understand evolution, you probably don’t understand AGW.
Btw, WHERE do you get YOUR numbers. Name and link your source.

Funny how this is addressed where the science has declared that CO2 produces lower and lower results as it get larger. So the rise you fear is over with. Also you focus on temperature and that is weather.

 

[Robert W]

You still can’t name any science based institutions that support you, can you ?

But what does science say about saving the planet with good-paying jobs? Or about whether Trump should be president? Almost nothing. And what does it say about how we should address the climate change problem? Only a little bit more.

First, what Science has taught us: Climate change is a real side effect of humans’ efforts to harness energy—the bedrock of our material well-being—via fossil fuel combustion. We know that there are sufficient fossil fuels around us that, if we were to burn all of them, global temperatures could potentially be raised by more than 10°C above preindustrial levels over thousands of years. We understand that this would be a magnitude and rate of change matched only by catastrophic events like the end-Cretaceous extinction, which caused the demise of the dinosaurs as well as around 75% of all species on the planet.

But we also know that human material well-being is fundamentally tied to the availability and affordability of energy, and over the past several centuries, humanity has found that the combustion of fossil fuels constitutes a particularly effective means of obtaining this energy. In the most extreme hypothetical case of halting all greenhouse gas emissions immediately (i.e., in a matter of weeks or months), we know that global economic production and trade could grind to a halt, and that the basic provision of food, water, and protection from the elements would be out of reach for large swaths of the global population.

Most people would thus agree that we would like to avoid both the consequences of the combustion of all fossil fuels as well as the consequences of eliminating all fossil fuels immediately. There’s a sweet spot, in short, somewhere in the middle.

Climate action advocates often claim that, according to The Science, we have already blown past that sweet spot and that it is therefore necessary to embark on a very rapid transition away from current energy, industrial, and agricultural systems, such that there are net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and the globe avoids 1.5°C of warming. In the corporate sustainability world, such goals are even referred to as science-based targets.

In this worldview, humanity’s apparent inability to fully adopt science-based targets is an indictment of our systems of governance—and of human nature itself. Slower-than-recommended progress on decarbonization must mean that politicians are bought off and that we as a species are selfish, myopic, and rife with science-denialism. But does The Science actually dictate the optimal speed and pathway to decarbonization? It does not.

There is no single entity named The Science to call upon to make such a prescription, and even if there were, it would not be able to objectively and definitively weigh all the pros and cons of various courses of action across different people, societies, and species over space and time in order to come to such a conclusion. Thus, the best we can hope for is what already exists: a messy process of decision-making in which mostly democratically elected leaders—influenced by a variety of stakeholders—try to determine reasonable policies and actions.

 

[Robert W]

Fraud denier. If there was any proof, the science community would have the evidence not conservative think tanks.

You keep ignoring the science community.

 

[Dagosa]

Not surprisingly, you did NOT answer the basic scientific question, the same one skeptics have been asking since the Climate Cult first cam into being: How must temperature increase is cause when you control all variable except for increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

We've never gotten a numerical answer.

And we strongly suspect that the answer is something like .002F "increase" in temperature

Still not using the word Rate are you. That means you’re still dumb. Talk to braggart Robert W. He claims to know calculus. He can teach you everything * about rate of change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still not using the word Rate are you. That means you’re still dumb. Talk to braggart Robert W. He claims to know calculus. He can teach you everything * about rate of change.

Still no number?

Odd, so much “consensus”, so little evidence

 

[Dagosa]

Still no number?

Odd, so much “consensus”, so little evidence

Number of what ? You tell show us your source that says it’s relevant, we will give you all the data you want from the ONLY people who conduct studies. Tell us what studies your numbers come from.

 

[Robert W]

Still not using the word Rate are you. That means you’re still dumb. Talk to braggart Robert W. He claims to know calculus. He can teach you everything * about rate of change.

Climate is not really very well suited to use of Calculus. Sure rate can be calculated but we are guessing at rate. At least I believe the scientists who use Calculus say that about Climate change.

But let's find out from scientists and students who took calculus.

Go to environmental_science
r/environmental_science•5 yr. ago
succulent_samurai

How much calculus do you actually use in environmental science?​

I'm majoring in environmental science and one of the requirements for the major is calculus I. I was wondering how often you actually use it in the career? Like if I only know it well enough to pass the class will I wish I'd learned more later? Thanks for the advice

CarexAquatilis
•5y ago•Edited 5y ago

Enough to pass the class is probably enough.
You may end up using some calculus if you get into a chem heavy field, but calculators or other tools will be available.
It's more important that you understand what's going on regarding the chemistry than be able to efficiently solve mathematical problems.

Nikonbiologist
•5y ago

I’ve been in env science for over 10 years and never once used calculus. Stats, yes. The field is broad so the requirements and skills vary a lot between careers.

Environmental Science​

This subreddit is for the scientific discussion of topics in the environmental sciences, geosciences, and other relevant discipline's; including papers, articles, research, public-policy, and both educational and professional advice.
Show more

Reddit, Inc. © 2024. All rights reserved.

 

[Dagosa]

Climate is not really very well suited to use of Calculus. Sure rate can be calculated but we are guessing at rate. At least I believe the scientists who use Calculus say that about Climate change.

But let's find out from scientists and students who took calculus.

Go to environmental_science
r/environmental_science•5 yr. ago
succulent_samurai

How much calculus do you actually use in environmental science?​

I'm majoring in environmental science and one of the requirements for the major is calculus I. I was wondering how often you actually use it in the career? Like if I only know it well enough to pass the class will I wish I'd learned more later? Thanks for the advice

CarexAquatilis
•5y ago•Edited 5y ago

Enough to pass the class is probably enough.
You may end up using some calculus if you get into a chem heavy field, but calculators or other tools will be available.
It's more important that you understand what's going on regarding the chemistry than be able to efficiently solve mathematical problems.

Nikonbiologist
•5y ago

I’ve been in env science for over 10 years and never once used calculus. Stats, yes. The field is broad so the requirements and skills vary a lot between careers.

Environmental Science​

This subreddit is for the scientific discussion of topics in the environmental sciences, geosciences, and other relevant discipline's; including papers, articles, research, public-policy, and both educational and professional advice.
Show more

Reddit, Inc. © 2024. All rights reserved.

Seriously, you know nothing about calculus do you.
Nothing you posted means anything.
None if it comes from science presently involved in climate science. You claim to known calculus and you claim to know what graphs are. Graphs are all about position functions and going from one point to another at a particular rate. The instantaneous rate of change at any point can be found by applying the first derivatives to the position function. The rate at which the earth temps are warming are the basis for all climate change discussion……
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

 

[Robert W]

Seriously, you know nothing about calculus do you.
Nothing you posted means anything.
None if it comes from science presently involved in climate science. You claim to known calculus and you claim to know what graphs are. Graphs are all about position functions and going from one point to another at a particular rate. The instantaneous rate of change at any point can be found by applying the first derivatives to the position function. The rate at which the earth temps are warming are the basis for all climate change discussion……
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

See how unscientific you actually are? This was about calculus. You love talking calculus a lot And when you get it talked about, you have a fit.

 

[Dagosa]

Climate is not really very well suited to use of Calculus. Sure rate can be calculated but we are guessing at rate. At least I believe the scientists who use Calculus say that about Climate change.

But let's find out from scientists and students who took calculus.

Go to environmental_science
r/environmental_science•5 yr. ago
succulent_samurai

How much calculus do you actually use in environmental science?​

I'm majoring in environmental science and one of the requirements for the major is calculus I. I was wondering how often you actually use it in the career? Like if I only know it well enough to pass the class will I wish I'd learned more later? Thanks for the advice

CarexAquatilis
•5y ago•Edited 5y ago

Enough to pass the class is probably enough.
You may end up using some calculus if you get into a chem heavy field, but calculators or other tools will be available.
It's more important that you understand what's going on regarding the chemistry than be able to efficiently solve mathematical problems.

Nikonbiologist
•5y ago

I’ve been in env science for over 10 years and never once used calculus. Stats, yes. The field is broad so the requirements and skills vary a lot between careers.

Environmental Science​

This subreddit is for the scientific discussion of topics in the environmental sciences, geosciences, and other relevant discipline's; including papers, articles, research, public-policy, and both educational and professional advice.
Show more

Reddit, Inc. © 2024. All rights reserved.

Seriously, you know nothing about calculus do you.

Climate is not really very well suited to use of Calculus. Sure rate can be calculated but we are guessing at rate. At least I believe the scientists who use Calculus say that about Climate change.

But let's find out from scientists and students who took calculus.

Go to environmental_science
r/environmental_science•5 yr. ago
succulent_samurai

How much calculus do you actually use in environmental science?​

I'm majoring in environmental science and one of the requirements for the major is calculus I. I was wondering how often you actually use it in the career? Like if I only know it well enough to pass the class will I wish I'd learned more later? Thanks for the advice

CarexAquatilis
•5y ago•Edited 5y ago

Enough to pass the class is probably enough.
You may end up using some calculus if you get into a chem heavy field, but calculators or other tools will be available.
It's more important that you understand what's going on regarding the chemistry than be able to efficiently solve mathematical problems.

Nikonbiologist
•5y ago

I’ve been in env science for over 10 years and never once used calculus. Stats, yes. The field is broad so the requirements and skills vary a lot between careers.

Environmental Science​

This subreddit is for the scientific discussion of topics in the environmental sciences, geosciences, and other relevant discipline's; including papers, articles, research, public-policy, and both educational and professional advice.
Show more

Reddit, Inc. © 2024. All rights reserved.

wrong foolish
Modeling of climate change from MIT
Models of the earth’s climate are based on laws of physics: • conservation of energy
•Conservation of momentum
•Conservation of mass
•Ideal gas law
We can express the changes in the variables by a “continuity equation”:
The total change (rate of accumulation) of Φ in the box
Actual production or destruction of Φ within the box
downstream boxes or arrival of Φ from an upstream box
(called advection or convection)

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/53710/15-023JSpring-2004/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-023JSpring-2004/721CD3A8-22C7-4B3D-984A-2111B6AE9DD2/0/lec3_1.pdf

 

[Dagosa]

See how unscientific you actually are? This was about calculus. You love talking calculus a lot And when you get it talked about, you have a fit.

Here dufus….take it up with MIT…you are a dullard.

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/53710/15-023JSpring-2004/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-023JSpring-2004/721CD3A8-22C7-4B3D-984A-2111B6AE9DD2/0/lec3_1.pdf

 

[Robert W]

Seriously, you know nothing about calculus do you.

wrong foolish
Modeling of climate change from MIT
Models of the earth’s climate are based on laws of physics: • conservation of energy
•Conservation of momentum
•Conservation of mass
•Ideal gas law
We can express the changes in the variables by a “continuity equation”:
The total change (rate of accumulation) of Φ in the box
Actual production or destruction of Φ within the box
downstream boxes or arrival of Φ from an upstream box
(called advection or convection)

I think Calculus is why we got to the Moon and put machines on Mars. I was thrilled to take Calculus in college. But any math that is used daily is best used by those needing to use the math. The rest of us can love the math but not have reasons to dwell on it daily.

You dwell on a math you do not remotely understand proven by what you posted above.

 

[Robert W]

Here dufus….take it up with MIT…you are a dullard.

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/53710/15-023JSpring-2004/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-023JSpring-2004/721CD3A8-22C7-4B3D-984A-2111B6AE9DD2/0/lec3_1.pdf

MIT it will be. Now you admit it is up to MIT, believe me all will be grateful to me for telling you to go away. Let MIT deal with this.

But because of the complexity of the earth’s climatesystem, building any model that can simulate thechanging climate to the satisfaction of policy makers is adifficult task and an ongoing subject of research.Such a model has to answer what happens to temperature,precipitation, humidity, wind speed and direction, clouds,and ice all around the globe over long time scales as aresult of radiativeforcing due to changing amounts ofgreenhouse gases and aerosols.

 

[Dagosa]

Climate is not really very well suited to use of Calculus.

What a fool. Calculus is used in ALL major studies utilizing physics….I’ve never seen or heard such a dullard.