The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[westwall]

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

No, what the warmerists have is no chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything.

That's why they need bullshit computer models where they control the inputs.

There you are. It's those damn computers again. If we could go back to pencil and paper we'd be fat, dumb and happy.

The dinosauers didn't need computers. They went extinct without them.

When your computer models are compared vs simply flipping a coin....the coin wins! How stupid do you have to be to think your computer models are so good when in fact they are crushed by the random flipping of a coin?


Epic fail!

 

[Oddball]

So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.

No, what the warmerists have is no chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything.

That's why they need bullshit computer models where they control the inputs.

There you are. It's those damn computers again. If we could go back to pencil and paper we'd be fat, dumb and happy.

The dinosauers didn't need computers. They went extinct without them.

Wow...That's a crappeir straw man argument than we usually see elsewhere on the board.

 

[PMZ]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

And you, as one opinion, do not matter. The majority of humanity is working solutions now while a small minority, formerly known as the Flat Earth Society, is still waiting for God's email as the only acceptable proof.

Humanity just can't afford that much caution. We never could, we certainly can't now.

 

[PMZ]

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

Does demand follow suppy, or supply follow demand? It's a feedback loop.

That gslack gave you a thanks... priceless.

LOL, and what does that mean in this context here? Come on socko quit rambling nonsense already. Your Jeff Spiccoli teaches esoteric science routine passed old a while ago. You too drunk or stoned to make a viable point? Too burned out maybe?

A bit of advice.. Being the smartest guy in your smoking circle doesn't make you smart. It just means you're an imaginative stoner compared to the stoners you hang with. And imaginative doesn't mean smarter,just means you're more full of shit...

Slackerman Limpnoodle III's 2 cents worth is grossly over valued.

 

[Oddball]

Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

And you, as one opinion, do not matter. The majority of humanity is working solutions now while a small minority, formerly known as the Flat Earth Society, is still waiting for God's email as the only acceptable proof.

Humanity just can't afford that much caution. We never could, we certainly can't now.

So, you've been appointed as humanity's spokesman now, Captain Strawman?

 

[PMZ]

Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation. How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming. Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?

The very definition of a greenhouse gas. Have you heard that term?

Yes, we have. You claim that CO2 will raise temps. The temps havn't risen for 15 years at least. Show us an algorithm that explains how that is possible in light of CO2 levels continuing to rise to ever higher levels.

I did. You chose not to read it. That's the nature of denialism. Un-natural selection of input.

Remember, half understanding is not halfway to full understanding but actually more ignorant than not understanding at all because those people know that they don't know. You assume that what you don't know can't hurt you. That's probably true, but it can hurt us if we don't remove your hands from the controls. Which, of course, we've done.

 

[Oddball]

OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

Ahem......

 

[PMZ]

In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?

The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.

Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

 

[PMZ]

Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.

That's actually been settled for quite some time now. The CO2 is the same CO2 sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, and the impact of its return to the atmosphere is exactly the reverse is of what happened when it was removed from the atmosphere.

No big surprise. Just the nature of greenhouse gasses.

Yes, it has been settled for a very long time. CO2 FOLLOWS increased temperatures by 400 to 800 years.

So what causes global warming? Is God screwing with the thermostat again?

What happened 400 to 800 years ago that caused the current CO2 increase?

 

[PMZ]

I speculate on investments and choosing dentists all the time without much empirical data. I do better than 50/50...

I've actually heard the word "speculate" many times at conferences.. I do believe it's accepted coinage of advanced research...

You betcha. Like all words "speculate" is a fine word in the right context. Like when one is speculating. Otherwise, it's a bad word to use. Like when you're not speculating.

Speculate is in the realm of charlatans.....like you.

Every human being that I know speculates almost constantly. Are you the dull witted mediabot that proves that rule?

 

[PMZ]

OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

 

[PMZ]

Opinions? Can climate reactionaries be ID'd by the weirdness of their avatars?

They seem middle school boys to me.

 

[PMZ]

Comparing a hard science to a soft science and inserting technical talk. I for one, am seriously impressed.

And you, as one opinion, do not matter. The majority of humanity is working solutions now while a small minority, formerly known as the Flat Earth Society, is still waiting for God's email as the only acceptable proof.

Humanity just can't afford that much caution. We never could, we certainly can't now.

So, you've been appointed as humanity's spokesman now, Captain Strawman?

I try to help be science's spokesperson. Somebody has to counter the Flat Earth Society and Rush Limbaugh.

 

[westwall]

Only if you ignore positive feedbacks.

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

What'sa matter boy... you no speaka the English? SHOW US YOUR MATH! That's an opinion piece with no math. Do try and keep up.

 

[Oddball]

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives.

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

 

[westwall]

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives. I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

That's not the way science works junior. As Aristotle said.....


"He who asserts must also prove"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.

OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.

You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.

The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.

That is a fact.

"The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms."

While I hate to agree with an empty skull, I do fully agree with this statement.

Unfortunately only some of the human race. And it will take most of our output for a long time. And the slower we move the more costly it will be.

That's why you see all of this action going on around the world.

Only some of the human race ever survives.
In case you didn't know it, people die every day.

And you aren't going to stop that.

We would have to lose an awful lot to be reduced to the point where it takes all our energy to merely survive.

And a slightly warmer planet won't even come close to doing that.

 

[itfitzme]

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives.

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

*

I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

That's a ridiculous application of "Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc."

You asked for how many people, you got "hundreds".

You asked for cost, you got "$100B".

Last I checked, all insurance claims are "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

By definition, extreme is beyond the average, by multiple standard deviations. *AWG is "than might have otherwise been expected".

And that's how statistics works.*

It's not Newtonian mechanics.

 

[PMZ]

Name the positive feedbacks and show us your math.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

What'sa matter boy... you no speaka the English? SHOW US YOUR MATH! That's an opinion piece with no math. Do try and keep up.

I should have known that you expected some +'s and -'s and that statistical inference would sail right over your head.

Teaching people committed to ignorance is not possible. Sorry.

 

[PMZ]

Some?...Specifically how many people?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Most?...Specifically how much output?...A loose percentage?...Source?

Costly?..In terms of what?...How were these figures determined?...Source?

In 2012 the US spent about $100B on extreme weather recovery and lost a few hundred lives.

Non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I'm going to claim that was all due to AGW. Prove me wrong.

No...That's not how it works...You prove that you're right, with verifiable facts and figures.

Now answer the questions with citations to verifiable sources.

I didn't get the email putting you in charge of how it works. I'm right unless you can prove me wrong is how I work. I'm sick of people who say that science owes them knowledge. Nobody owes you a thing. If you're not capable of keeping up you pay the price.