Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

I think what happened to you is that you have SO MUCH FAITH in "scientists" and especially in a "scientific consensus" that you just stop thinking after you find out that "97% of scientists agree...."

Some of us still want to see that data.

The 97% told you that modern changes are "unprecedented" and you BELIEVED them.

Even when confronted with data which OBVIOUSLY contradicts that claim you hold onto your faith in the proclamations of the 97%.

Just as a sanity check...do the ice core records I posted show dramatic changes in temperature?

Or are you somehow CERTAIN that those obvious and dramatic changes are still not as dramatic as the mild modern warming shown in the actual temperature record? Because the consensus told you so?
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Another FUN POST which attempts to quantify how BAD science has become.

Science is only valid if is is replicable / reproducible.

This source (from NATURE) actually surveys working scientists and even THEY ADMIT how bad things have become.

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.


"More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers..."

Just chock full of admissions that most modern science isn't worthy of being trusted as it now stands.

For the "scientist fetishists" here...a simple question:

If you can't reproduce the results is it still actually worthy of your faithful trust as being undeniably true???

If I express doubt in the veracity of a scientific result, even one that fails replication, does that still qualify me as a hillbilly denier?

https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scien ... ty-1.19970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chock full of shocking revelations!
Ski the edges!
rogman
Postinator
Posts: 7011
Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by rogman »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:Another FUN POST which attempts to quantify how BAD science has become.

Science is only valid if is is replicable / reproducible.

This source (from NATURE) actually surveys working scientists and even THEY ADMIT how bad things have become.

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.


"More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers..."

Just chock full of admissions that most modern science isn't worthy of being trusted as it now stands.

For the "scientist fetishists" here...a simple question:

If you can't reproduce the results is it still actually worthy of your faithful trust as being undeniably true???

If I express doubt in the veracity of a scientific result, even one that fails replication, does that still qualify me as a hillbilly denier?

https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scien ... ty-1.19970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chock full of shocking revelations!
To paraphrase your interpretation: all scientists are dishonest hacks, and thus there is no climate change. Bit of leap there, Sparky. FWIW, in general, the problems are worse in areas of psychology, biology, and medicine, because tests in those fields are so difficult to administer, and results are often open to interpretation. Regardless, your apparent solution is to trust paid bloggers such as Watt. You want to talk about irreproducable results.... Anyway, fivethirtyeight actually had a better take on it a few years back: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sc ... roken/amp/ Bottom line, there are good scientists and bad ones, just like there are good and bad plumbers. They shouldn't be put on a pedestal.
Image
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

rogman wrote: To paraphrase your interpretation: all scientists are dishonest hacks, and thus there is no climate change. Bit of leap there, Sparky. FWIW, in general, the problems are worse in areas of psychology, biology, and medicine, because tests in those fields are so difficult to administer, and results are often open to interpretation. Regardless, your apparent solution is to trust paid bloggers such as Watt. You want to talk about irreproducable results.... Anyway, fivethirtyeight actually had a better take on it a few years back: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sc ... roken/amp/ Bottom line, there are good scientists and bad ones, just like there are good and bad plumbers. They shouldn't be put on a pedestal.
OK How you got "all scientists are dishonest hacks" from my post just shows with crystal clarity the corrupted view of science that YOU have.

Your argument has always been "we need to trust the experts... how could so many of them be wrong" as its rock bottom foundation. (that wasa characterization not an actual quote...(informing the mentally challenged)).

When I have shown you a multitude of instances where your attitude leads you to believe things that simply aren't true you still believe the consensus....because....well to you "science" is gospel.

The last post was merely a well-quantified example of how your argument by authority position is not really any better justified in science than it is for religion. "Scientific" claims that cannot be reproduced are not really science. Sorry if you don't really get that.

So a lot of what is labeled "science" today actually...isn't.

My solution isn't " to trust paid bloggers such as Watt(sic)." I don't TRUST anyone.

"Trusting" someone would lead to "settled science"...which is really the opposite of real science. Someone Like Anthony Watts is allowed to MAKE A CLAIM. I will listen and consider the claim. (You won't because he is a "denier") If another counter-claim with supporting data seems to invalidate Watts' claim I will (provisionally) devalue that claim in favor of the better-supported claim. That is what real scientists do.

As to your claim that " the problems are worse in areas of psychology, biology, and medicine, because tests in those fields are so difficult to administer, and results are often open to interpretation." Well... it took me a long time to stop laughing long enough to type.

You ACTUALLY think that replication is more robust in CLIMATE SCIENCE????

Yes those areas of science have problems...mostly due to the complexity of the system studied. Virtually all outcomes have multi-factorial causation and disentangling the contributions of the various contributing factors is almost impossible. Much of the data is not by it's nature amenable to replication and outcomes often take decades to manifest.

Or did I just describe CLIMATE SCIENCE?

Yup. All the issues that make investigations involing biological sciences("psychology, biology, and medicine") so challenging are present to an even GREATER extent in Climate Science. Climate science is almost impossibly complex, probably the most complex field in science. The results should thus be treated with among the least certainty of all the results from various fields of science.

If you measure what we now know against what we will eventually need to know to call the claims in a field of science as deserving the title "settled science" ... Climate Science probably stands out as the LEAST certain of all the fields in science.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

And more!! (must be Christmas gifts for "climate skeptics!")

GOOD NEWS (If you trust peer-reviewed “science”)

7 New (2017) Papers Forecast Global Cooling, Another Little Ice Age Will Begin Soon
(!!** all peer-reviewed**!!)

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/28/7-ne ... lttbP.dpbs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some Highlights:

“During 2017, 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity and its modulators (clouds, cosmic rays) have been published in scientific journals.”

Temperatures To Decrease 0.5°C-0.7°C Due To Low Sunspots, Solar Minimum”

“More sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, by way of increased brightness of the Sun and solar wind what tend to warm the Earth. Solar activity affects the Earth in many ways, some which we are still coming to understand.”

“This actually will lead to a decrease of the temperature on 0.5 – 0.7°C in both averaged solar cycles, in Geneva will decrease to 1.5 °C. Temperature of air will be lower in the Northern Hemisphere.”

“The World Ocean level also will be lower, due to more snow and glacier accumulation on continents.”

“The model computes a new Dalton-type sunspot minimum from approximately 2025 to 2050 and a new Dalton-type period TSI minimum from approximately 2040 to 2065.”

“A mostly rural Northern Hemisphere composite temperature series 1880–2013 shows strong correlation with the TSI-HS reconstruction, which indicates a strong solar influence on the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere

“By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.”

“It predicts a temperature drop from present to AD 2050, a slight rise from 2050 to 2130, and a further drop from AD 2130 to 2200,”
Global-Temperature-2000-Years-Lüdecke-and-Weiss-2017.jpg
Global-Temperature-2000-Years-Lüdecke-and-Weiss-2017.jpg (133.88 KiB) Viewed 1006 times
Predictions from above

“Our results could be connected with the mechanism of charged particle fluxes influencing the Earth’s climate; it includes, first of all, the effect charged particles have on the accelerated formation of centers of water vapor condensation, and thus on the increase in global cloud cover. The total cloud cover is directly connected with the global temperature of the near surface air layer.” Svensmark's Claim validated
Cooling-Predicition-Cosmic-Rays-Stozhkov-2017.jpg
Cooling-Predicition-Cosmic-Rays-Stozhkov-2017.jpg (168.69 KiB) Viewed 1006 times
Prediction from above paper.

Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits, it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Given the lack of any empirical CO2-climate connection reviewed earlier and the inverse relationship between CO2 and temperature [during the Holocene, when CO2 rose as temperatures declined] seen in Figure 2, and for the years 2003.6–2015.2 in Figure 4, during which CO2 rose 20 ppm, the simplest and most rational working hypothesis is that the solar ‘activity’ increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA.



IT JUST KEEPS GOING.

Is this “settled science”???????
Ski the edges!
GSKI
Powderhound
Posts: 1541
Joined: Jan 11th, '11, 08:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by GSKI »

Political climate change is a desperate attempt by Western nations who already have strict environmental standards, to justify steep energy taxes to their populations that are already taxed a lot. Nobody is saying the climate is not changing. It has been changing since the earth was formed after the bid bang. The climate has been much warmer and much colder than today. Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been much higher than today. It is pretty arrogant to believe that crippling energy taxes on nations that already have clean air will be enough to micromanage the global climate of the planet. This is especially far fetched when you consider that China and India contribute much more pollution than the savings by the west. Climate change as a political movement is a tax scam, and nothing more. We should have strict environmental standards (as we do) and encourage others to do the same. Proposed carbon taxes are just a huge new revenue source that the western countries need to continue to pay for their socialist government's out of control spending used to buy the votes of the ignorant greedy and naive.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by madhatter »

GSKI wrote:Political climate change is a desperate attempt by Western nations who already have strict environmental standards, to justify steep energy taxes to their populations that are already taxed a lot. Nobody is saying the climate is not changing. It has been changing since the earth was formed after the bid bang. The climate has been much warmer and much colder than today. Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been much higher than today. It is pretty arrogant to believe that crippling energy taxes on nations that already have clean air will be enough to micromanage the global climate of the planet. This is especially far fetched when you consider that China and India contribute much more pollution than the savings by the west. Climate change as a political movement is a tax scam, and nothing more. We should have strict environmental standards (as we do) and encourage others to do the same. Proposed carbon taxes are just a huge new revenue source that the western countries need to continue to pay for their socialist government's out of control spending used to buy the votes of the ignorant greedy and naive.
yep more gruberism...just dress it up all pretty with a name like cap and trade then set up an exchange system in chicago run by your friends to facilitate all that "trading" and "capping" while collecting a tidy sum for brokering it...yep FVCK THAT!!!


meanwhile based on national temps it looks like trump has already resolved the global warming issue :D :like ....minus 26 here this morning....
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
GSKI
Powderhound
Posts: 1541
Joined: Jan 11th, '11, 08:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by GSKI »

meanwhile based on national temps it looks like trump has already resolved the global warming issue :D :like ....minus 26 here this morning....
Hey deplorable when its cold for a few days that is "weather" not climate. Of course when its hot a few days that is climate and a sure sign of man made global warming! Get it! We need strict new environmental standards to jack up the cost of energy to unilaterally destroy our economy and send the rest of our energy intensive manufacturing overseas so they can import their finished goods back into the US using some free trade agreement. The finance industry in NY and tech biz in MA and Cali will do just fine regardless so no biggie.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Here are some of the best ice core data which show obvious dramatic temperature changes at least as rapid as any suggested in modern data sets.

Image
The current trend in the UAH (V6) dataset is 0.13 C / decade. Each tic on the horizontal axis (time) of the above graph covers 2000 years. Extrapolating the current trend gives 26 C per tic. A rise of that magnitude exceeds the entire temperature range of the graph and would essentially appear as a vertical line, i.e. off the chart.

For the UAH satellite record, 2017 was the third warmest year, with 2016 the hottest year (1998 is second). 9 of the 10 hottest years in the UAH record occurred this century and for 2001-2017, 15 years are in the hottest 17.

Not to mention today is considerably warmer than the past few days 8)
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote: Rogman's representation that these high quality proxy data sets show "modern warming is unprecedented" is obviously absurd.
Obviously not.
Guy in Shorts
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3754
Joined: Mar 29th, '12, 18:27
Location: KMP Island

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Guy in Shorts »

With all the Bay 1 idling I have been doing the past couple weeks we should be seeing a measurable increase in temperature for the coming week as a direct result.
If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Guy in Shorts wrote:With all the Bay 1 idling I have been doing the past couple weeks we should be seeing a measurable increase in temperature for the coming week as a direct result.
Getting warmer already.
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

German coalition negotiators agree to scrap 2020 climate target
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKBN1EX0OW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s would-be coalition partners have agreed to drop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, sources familiar with negotiations said on Monday -- a potential embarrassment for Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Instead, they would aim to hit the 40 percent target in the early 2020s, the sources said, adding that both parties are still sticking to their goal of achieving a 55 percent cut in emissions by 2030.


If you can't hit the target, just keep moving the goal posts. Renewable energy and lowered emissions isn't as easy as it sounds.

Diversity in energy production is a good thing. But the lesson here is there are limits in the rate of change that is possible.
Image
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26275
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long ... -nasa-noaa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Bubba wrote:Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long ... -nasa-noaa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yeah ....well.... IMO....

Typical NASA/NOAA activist junk science…. They can’t keep this up forever…reality will eventually force their deception out into the open.

Here’s a compelling response to this silly claim:

“The US and Siberia have been experiencing record cold, as NASA and NOAA announce record heat - which the press hysterially parrots. In this video I show how fake the claims of record heat are.”

2017 - The Fakest Year On Record At NASA And NOAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hg-koV1T0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A good recap at some of the fraud that goes into producing this disproven narrative.

Look at the "hot spots" on this map (from original link posted)... most of the "record heat" is from the places with virtually NO ACTUAL DATA! (the arctic).
18-003.jpg
18-003.jpg (79.23 KiB) Viewed 615 times
Ski the edges!
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Bubba wrote:Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long ... -nasa-noaa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yeah ....well.... IMO....

Typical NASA/NOAA activist junk science…. They can’t keep this up forever…reality will eventually force their deception out into the open.

Here’s a compelling response to this silly claim:

“The US and Siberia have been experiencing record cold, as NASA and NOAA announce record heat - which the press hysterially parrots. In this video I show how fake the claims of record heat are.”

2017 - The Fakest Year On Record At NASA And NOAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hg-koV1T0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A good recap at some of the fraud that goes into producing this disproven narrative.
Uh huh. And what about that pesky UAH satellite data? 2017 was the third warmest year, behind 2016 as the warmest. This notion it was colder than normal in some regions therefore the global temperature trend cannot be positive is like claiming because a number of stocks in the S&P500 went down, the entire trend couldn't possibly be up.
Post Reply