Weather and Climate change

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-30-2019, 10:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, it's all junk science. For instance, the epidemiology of insect borne diseases is changing because temperatures are changing the ranges of insects. Thus we've seen a increase in tick borne diseases such as Lyme's disease in areas where there was very little or none before. Climatologists have got the medical community in on the scam, also.

I see lots of patients with gastroenteritis. Occasionally, it is seafood related as in the case of someone I saw recently after eating a dozen raw oysters. Vibrio parahaemolyticus is the most likely cause with seafood related gastroenteritis in the US.

According to a NEJM article I read recently, the range of this bacteria has increased 1000 km north into the waters of Alaska.

Not only have the climatologists tricked the ticks of North America into believing this climate change crap, now they tricked the bacteria that gives you the shits, also. Who knew that ticks and bacteria could even read the studies?

[Dill]

(05-29-2019, 12:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are building inspectors part of city planning? We’ve got those and they can hear you nail two boards together from 3 miles away.

lol  like magic.

[Dill]

(07-09-2019, 07:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I see lots of patients with gastroenteritis. Occasionally, it is seafood related as in the case of someone I saw recently after eating a dozen raw oysters. Vibrio parahaemolyticus is the most likely cause with seafood related gastroenteritis in the US.

According to a NEJM article I read recently, the range of this bacteria has increased 1000 km north into the waters of Alaska.

Not only have the climatologists tricked the ticks of North America into believing this climate change crap, now they tricked the bacteria that gives you the shits, also. Who knew that ticks and bacteria could even read the studies?

Not the Republican ticks!! They won't cross the 49th parallel.

[Dill]

(05-30-2019, 07:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: A new record relative to, like, 150 years?!?

Yeah, that literally is weather, not climate change.

I keep telling this board (but no one cares to actually educate themselves) - catastrophic global warming is based on junk science.  It's based on CO2 as a catalyst.  We have 20+ years now debunking that (which falsely assumes that assumption was founded on good science in the first place).

LOL you keep "telling" us what the extraction industry tells us,

and calling "junk science" projections underwritten by the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists--those not on the Exxon/BP payroll.

So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

We should expect to find some some climate change skeptics in the US, GB, China, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and to read their "research" in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Could you perhaps link us to the REAL climate science?   

[Dill]

(05-29-2019, 03:03 PM)jason Wrote: I grew up in Xenia, and was born 6 months after the tornado that destroyed it. So growing up it was tornado this, tornado that. I'd always heard that they don't strike at night, and they don't hit urban areas. I live in Dayton at the moment, and I can testify that they do both of those things now.

My grandfather's 4-year-old brother was killed by a night tornado in Texas back in 1897. So I was told, anyway.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(05-30-2019, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just like with the Garden of Eden it was the women's fault.  Human women started screwing God's sons and having giants.

Not sure who "the sons of God" were, but that is what the Bible says

Genesis Chapter 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,

It is believed, at least by myself and others, that "Sons of God" refers to the line of Seth and the "Daughters of Men" refers to the line of Cain.

When it says "Giants in the Earth" it is talking about men of renown, strong and powerful men such as kings or leaders of a city.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-09-2019, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Not the Republican ticks!! They won't cross the 49th parallel.

Explains why they only bite blue dogs in the south.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-09-2019, 07:34 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL you keep "telling" us what the extraction industry tells us,

and calling "junk science" projections underwritten by the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists--those not on the Exxon/BP payroll.

So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

We should expect to find some some climate change skeptics in the US, GB, China, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and to read their "research" in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Could you perhaps link us to the REAL climate science?   

So overconfident and carefree about what you don’t know, you couldn’t even be bothered to spend 30 seconds doing a google search for Forbes/WSJ articles.  Your post is great – you intended to mock me but all you really accomplished was to demonstrate how extremely unread on the subject you are.

But I don’t expect someone who makes an appeal to authority by pretending to read the WSJ to have anything insightful to add to the debate.  If you actually read the WSJ, you’d know they fairly regularly have articles on climate alarmism.  And until leaving for NYT a few years ago, Bret Stephens was a pretty well-known climate change skeptic.

And before you start throwing the talking point “extraction industry” at people who doubt the climate change alarmism, you should probably try reading something on the subject since you clearly haven’t.  Also, you might consider green & climate change related business is a $2T+ global industry that would be significantly smaller without massive govt subsidies and funding.  Speaking of which, if there was even a remote chance of an “existential threat” the world would have been all-in on nuclear power 20 years ago.  Fortunately for you there’s no need to google to guess at how many nuclear plants have been built in the US in the last 20 years.  Certainly action speaks louder than words, and global policy and actions should inform people as to what the science more realistically is - “solutions” to the “crisis” are literally tilting at windmills.  That, and the crusade to silence debate and label people who reject alarmism as “deniers” should also be informative.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/12/a-case-against-climate-change-alarmism/#216d324d5dd9

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#60ec5c6053a5
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2015/11/17/climate-alarmism-statisms-new-clothes/#491622417ae5
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/29/global-warming-alarmism-when-science-is-fiction/#7ff5fcc97012
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/05/21/global-warming-alarmists-are-getting-desperate/#3fa5f4e63a98
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462?mod=rsswn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526?mod=rsswn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming-1386195856?mod=rsswn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-n-s-doomsday-climate-clock-1539645402?mod=rsswn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/environmentalists-need-to-get-real-1536010580?mod=rsswn

[JustWinBaby]

(07-09-2019, 07:34 PM)Dill Wrote: So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

Here's a list of well-known skeptics for you.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#ian-plimer-7



You might also look up Judith Curry and Roy Spencer.  Roger Pielke is another that frequently testifies before Congress with them.  You should read some of their stuff for yourself and decide if they are serious scientists that know what they are talking about.  Or you could choose to spend your time googling the radical activists trying to discredit them so you can perhaps convince yourself not to re-examine what you think you believe.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/

[*bfine32*]

JWB announces his presence with authority..

[JustWinBaby]

(05-30-2019, 08:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I've asked you repeatedly to share one of those articles you read so I could educate myself and you refused every time. Not one single article.

I've shared several in my last few posts.  You've always been capable of using google. The last few times this came up, most on the board appeared not to be even remotely knowledgeable on the subject. So I'm going to give you another long post about what I have come to learn and why I believe what I believe. I challenged people to post good science behind the "crisis alarmism" and got crickets.   The burden of proof is on the alarmism side - you'll not find much in the way of dispositive research.  Non-findings tend not to be published.  But you have to show strong scientific basis for assumptions behind the global warming cause, and it just doesn't exist.

Every doubling of CO2 contributes one degree of warming.  This is, to my knowledge, about the only actual testable and demonstrable fact related to climate change for which there is a real consensus.  That's hyperbole, but it makes the point.

·       The million dollar question is ECS.  Go look it up and then come back with some science telling me what that number is.  Spoiler alert – IPCC has estimated it to be between 1.5 and 4.5 for 30+ years (they may have recently changed it to 2.0-4.5, with a median of 3.8 or something like that).  Problem is, for low sensitivity there is no crisis…which seems to be the main driver between high values.

·       A number of recent studies have estimated TCR (that's the short-run effect, 10 years or so....ECS is long-run after hundreds of years and is about 20-30% higher than TCR) between 1.5-2.0.  Now, there’s enough proven fossil fuel reserves (including coal) to a little more than double CO2 in the air.  If we assume there’s plenty of unproven reserves to be found, we might be able to double CO2 twice….that would suggest an upper limit on warming of between 3-4 degrees.  And it won’t happen overnight, so hardly a crisis.

·       If we assume all warming estimated the past 100 years is from CO2 (it’s not), that would suggest an ECS of about 1.7.  If we look at satellite readings from the troposphere (where CO2 would have the strongest warming signal), it’s even less.  In fact, Roy Spencer (who maintains one of the satellite temp records) believes ECS is less than 1 because he isn’t seeing enough warming in the troposphere.

·       ECS <1 is a very minority opinion.  But such a value is common among stable systems.  Large values and “tipping points” are not something you see in stable systems.  We’ve had much higher values of CO2 in the past, and the world didn’t fry and temperatures came back down.  So I have no idea why people aren’t naturally skeptical of claims about a tipping point and existential crisis.  There’s nothing inherently magical or special about man-made CO2 emissions.

·       Higher estimates for ECS are based in no small part on correlations.  Any Stat 101 student can tell you correlation =/= causation.  Sure, the planet was much hotter with high C02 levels, and probably much lower during ice ages.  But in every case temperatures have come back – strong evidence AGAINST a tipping point, and frankly against high ECS values which would suggest an unstable system.  Long-run temperature stability simply doesn’t indicate high sensitivity to CO2.

·       So the burden of proof is really to demonstrate that ECS would be high, because the default assumption should clearly be somewhere between 1-1.5.  But it’s a nearly impossible thing to model and test.  All but one of the predictive models run warm, among other issues, use high values for ECS (it’s the only way to get alarming predictions).  The best and most accurate model, a Russian model, uses less sensitive values.  But we need to ignore the model that doesn’t predict crisis temperatures, even if it appears to be the most accurate.

·       I said in the beginning, the research assumes all the warming has been from CO2.  A necessary assumption in most cases, but one that would clearly bias things higher.  Then clouds/water vapor - go do some reading on that and then re-evaluate the confidence you have in the “science”.

[JustWinBaby]

It's not that the actual science is garbage, or that it reflects the alarmism frequently thrown about in media and politics. For the most part, it doesn't. But the more you dig, the more you'll realize there's a massive disconnect between what is reported in the media and the actual certainty, issues and challenges that the field is trying to address. And the field definitely has an issue anchoring to suspect assumptions, and more problematically tunnel vision.

A few other observations which people may find surprising and informative when reading alarmist claims blaming everything under the sun [no pun intended] on climate change:
• Most of the warming is occurring in the northern 1/2 of the northern hemisphere, at night, and in the winter. So contrary to “hot getting hotter!”, the rise in average temperature is mainly being driven by higher lows. Should make people skeptical of blaming extreme weather on climate change (spoiler alert – there’s no proof of that). Meanwhile, extreme temps all over the planet continue to be blamed on climate change even when the data says otherwise.

• The most frequent cited statistic is we’ve had about 1 degree of warming over the past century. This is surface temps. Again, the troposphere temps are warming only 60-70% as fast – it’s supposed to warm FASTER [more], because that’s where the CO2 goes and that’s where your greenhouse effect starts. The difference is probably still man-made, just not due to CO2. Sure, you can find plenty of “science” attempting to explain why their assumptions weren’t wrong. But as some point you need to question if defending a failed assumption isn’t actually science turned upside down.

• The “pause” in warming went away with an unusually warm El Nino in 2015/16. There is otherwise no warming over the past 20 years. Again, this is problematic for high ECS values….and/or problematic for the assumption all forcing mechanisms other than CO2 are unchanging.

• Came across this article the other day and the below quote really struck me as appropriate. Just substitute “climate change” for “nutrition”:
https://undark.org/2019/07/18/science-of-eggs/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
“Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2019, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: JWB announces his presence with authority..

The TL;DR version is simply this: What do you think the ECS value is?  And what research are you basing that on? 


There's not much point getting into it.  But I figured I'd throw down my thoughts somewhere for future reference.  When I see the doom & gloom articles they almost never mention the assumptions on CO2 and ECS.

Proven fossil fuel reserves are predicted to run out sometime like 2080.  So these alarmist predictions of massive warming in the next 20-30 years are demonstrably false.  It would take 60 years to warm 5 degrees, if ECS is 5 (which it's definitely not).

Even Judith Curry, who is in the "lukewarm" camp, doesn't rule out ECS values of 2-3.  But the ability to model and test it is very problematic, not to mention the assumption that all warming is attributed to CO2.

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 09:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Dill: LOL you keep "telling" us what the extraction industry tells us,
and calling "junk science" projections underwritten by the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists--those not on the Exxon/BP payroll.

So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

We should expect to find some some climate change skeptics in the US, GB, China, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and to read their "research" in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Could you perhaps link us to the REAL climate science?  

So overconfident and carefree about what you don’t know, you couldn’t even be bothered to spend 30 seconds doing a google search for Forbes/WSJ articles.  Your post is great – you intended to mock me but all you really accomplished was to demonstrate how extremely unread on the subject you are.

But I don’t expect someone who makes an appeal to authority by pretending to read the WSJ to have anything insightful to add to the debate.  If you actually read the WSJ, you’d know they fairly regularly have articles on climate alarmism.  And until leaving for NYT a few years ago, Bret Stephens was a pretty well-known climate change skeptic.

LOL looks like "conscious intellectualism" has returned to illuminate the climate change debate.  Pointing out the simple FACT that you, heretofore, have failed to actually produce any authoritative sources/arguments in support of your climate skepticism, on this or the previous message board, while calling the rest of us fools, hardly demonstrates that I am "extremely unread on the subject," much less "overconfident."  E.g.,  on the "THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR" thread a few years back, when I asked you stop simply claiming you were smart and everyone else was stupid, and finally put up some support other than your own mouth, your non-serious response was "can't prove a negative" (#57). Better said, you couldn't prove anything.

If I am "mocking" you with reference to Forbes/WSJ sources, why should that suggest I've not bothered doing a Google search? Wouldn't I mention the WSJ precisely BECAUSE I KNOW they are the go-to source for articles on what you call"climate alarmism"? And how would that be an "appeal to authority," since the implication of my reference is NOT that WSJ articles on climate are published there to service a general interest in science?  I.e., that the WSJ "fairly regularly have [suspect] articles on 'climate alarmism'" was the point. I'm guessing the consensus of WSJ journalists on the skeptic thesis is, what, 97.1%?

Before posting an unnecessary list of WSJ links to prove what was already my point, you argue that "if there was even a remote chance of an existential threat” the world would have been all-in on nuclear power 20 years ago," a self-refuting point. The smartest guy in the room is surely aware of the Exxon controversy, covering the warming predictions of their own scientists while spending millions to buy journalists and a few climate scientists to promote climate change skepticism. To make your claim, one would have to assume the extraction industries would immediately recognize the "remote chance" and get on board with the greens. So if these for-profit corporations have not cut their profits in favor of environmental friendly policies and alternative energy sources, there must be no global warming?? 

Speaking of industry funding of climate change skepticism, in response to my challenge to provide us with some actual "debunkers," you post a link of top ten "most respected skeptics," which include Jurassic Park novelist Michael Crichton, and EPA ECONOMIST Alan Carlin. Myron Ebell has an MA in POLITICAL science, very helpful for the PR work of skepticism. Did you even check how many of your "most respected skeptics" were climate scientists, or even scientists??

Patrick Michaels certainly is a climate scientist, and among the better paid friends of the industry. But why would your list include Giaever, who, as your source points out "isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene"? It is because your source is REACHING to create a list of 10 "most respected" for something, nevermind if the respect isn't specifically for climate change science.  That doesn't tell you something?

I'll be reading your posts #51 and 52 over the weekend. C02 levels have come down in the past; "strong evidence against a tipping point"; "nothing special" about man made emissions, WHICH WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST. LOL

[NATI BENGALS]

Weird this came back up yesterday. Your conservative bubble must have felt the need to deny climate change and it triggered you. They probably saw the record breaking heat in europe and figured they needed to do something to keep the blindfold and tin foil hats snuggly fitted on their minions.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 11:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Weird this came back up yesterday. Your conservative bubble must have felt the need to deny climate change and it triggered you. They probably saw the record breaking heat in europe and figured they needed to do something to keep the blindfold and tin foil hats snuggly fitted on their minions.

I think what triggered him was the reminder of past fails. At least he is actually trying to argue and include sources this time around. Still proclaiming everyone siding with the scientific consensus is ignorant and unread, though.

The bubble reference is interesting, since we have another thread going on that problem.  We probably should merge them. 

How do you respond if someone deep inside a bubble urges you to "educate yourself"?  He wants you to read what he's reading, right? THAT'S the definitive stuff.  The problem in urging us all to Google though, is that stuff from that OTHER bubble keeps coming up too--the one created by the majority of the world's climate scientists. But people who think for themselves don't buy what those kooks say, right? LOL

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-29-2019, 03:03 PM)jason Wrote: I grew up in Xenia, and was born 6 months after the tornado that destroyed it. So growing up it was tornado this, tornado that. I'd always heard that they don't strike at night, and they don't hit urban areas. I live in Dayton at the moment, and I can testify that they do both of those things now.

And I can verify that those things happened as far back as the late 70's when I was a kid and 1 came thru and wiped out some of my neighborhood.

(07-25-2019, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: JWB announces his presence with authority..

Yep, he did the last time too. Him and I have the same thoughts about this subject.
It's like the "Y2K" issue.

I wish we had Y2k often haha, I made a ton of money in 99 verifying digital equipment would still function on 1/1/2000 and 9/9/99 (9 being the number that tells programs to stop).
The US alone spent over $100B on that Y2k issue.

Nothing that I checked or anyone I know checked failed to work when the date rolled to 1/1/2000, worst case was it reset the year back to 1/1/1900. In which case you reported it and then it was up to the company to either deal with it or contact the original manufacture and get an update.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 11:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Weird this came back up yesterday. Your conservative bubble must have felt the need to deny climate change and it triggered you. They probably saw the record breaking heat in europe and figured they needed to do something to keep the blindfold and tin foil hats snuggly fitted on their minions.

Aren't Tin Foil hats for those that believe the conspiracies?

[GMDino]

I still fail to see how a majority of scientist and science points towards the trend of global warming and climate change but people think that even starting to do anything about is "bad" because it costs money.

Even with Y2K it was only considered a "waste" of money to check our electronics after the fact. There has been no "after the fact" with the climate.

[Beaker]

(07-25-2019, 09:43 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Here's a list of well-known skeptics for you.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#ian-plimer-7



You might also look up Judith Curry and Roy Spencer.  Roger Pielke is another that frequently testifies before Congress with them.  You should read some of their stuff for yourself and decide if they are serious scientists that know what they are talking about.  Or you could choose to spend your time googling the radical activists trying to discredit them so you can perhaps convince yourself not to re-examine what you think you believe.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/

Here is access to a very recent, multi year, in depth study....published in a respected scientific journal (not a newspaper or magazine article)...that definitively shows how climate deniers and their methods of denying climate change are wrong. It details how climate change is not just "normal warming or cooling of the Earth", or simply weather.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2?utm_source=commission_junction&utm_medium=affiliate

Climate change is very real.