Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15050949
BeesKnee5 wrote:You don't call it blame, you call it Gods will. but it's the same thing, an invisible hand controlling events for a purpose. If it leads to people, animals and the environment coming to harm then by passing on the responsibility to a non entity and refusing to accept the evidence of human influence you can carry on burning fusil fuels.

I believe using fossil fuels responsibly is beneficial to man and there is nothing evil about it. I even believe God provides such things for man's use. Why would they be there if God did not intend for us to use them for our benefit? The climate has been changing for thousands of years just like God intended and it will continue to change until God decides to put an end to it changing.
Praise the Lord.
#15051004
BeesKnee5 wrote:Indeed
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... ensus.xlsx

Look at the papers claimed to be showing cooling and then show me where in the actual paper that this is the case.

<yawn> First you claim I don't provide any sources; then when I provide a source, you say I have to actually REPLICATE the source's research?? Ah, no. If you think some paper on the list has not been accurately categorized as saying that the earth cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s, tell me which one and why, and I'll explain why your claim is incorrect.
#15051022
BeesKnee5 wrote:Let's add hero worship to your flaws.

So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.
You think this man wasnt paid as an advisor and speaker by an organisation funded by the oil industry.

So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.
The hypocrisy of claiming others are in it for money is clear.

So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.
However, his inability to cope with the information age is well documented.

Then why can't you document it?
An old man in his seventies who couldn't get more research funding because his methods were outdated.

In the sense that his research showed anti-fossil-fuel hysteria was a crock of $#!+.
If you think Angstroms assistant could make more acturate measurements than today's scientists or even replicate the atmosphere at higher levels without the direct observations made in the 1950s then you really are deluded.

I didn't say Angstrom's observatinos were more accurate, just that they were accurate enough, and more recent ones have not overturned his conclusions.
I've provided multiple papers that show evidence has moved understanding forwards since Angstrom. You are yet to counter any of them.

I showed why they don't mean what you claim they mean.
As promised, everytime you claim Angstrom has never been disproved I'll offer another paper showing his understand was incomplete and flawed..

Thanks for admitting he has never been disproved.
Callendar, G.S. (1941). "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation." 

He proved that there are gaps in the absorbtion bands of H2O where CO2 is strongly absorbant.

Narrow gaps, and already well saturated, so it does not justify anti-CO2 hysteria.
Again something Angstrom was ignorant of and yet you still want to hang your hat on his work.

Again, nothing in that work suggests that the modest improvements in instrumentation support the claim that modest differences in CO2 concentration can produce large differences in global temperature.
You even claimed his experiments had been recently replicated successfully multiple times and yet still you provide no evidence to support this.

It's trivial to replicate them.
It's truly pathetic that you can't recognise what a fool you are making of yourself by seeing one set of 100 year old research as fact when the world is full of later evidence that provides better understanding of what is happening in our atmosphere.

The improved understanding just does not support anti-CO2 hysteria.
You are stuck in your cherry picking world having to deny anything that doesn't fit rather than looking at why that might be the case.

I'm not denying evidence, just what that evidence is interpreted to mean.
Still waiting for your proof that you have a more detailed understanding of the absorption spectrum of molecules than the spectroscopy measurements stored in the HITRAN database that you previously tried to claim distorted the facts.

The HITRAN database showed I am correct: adding CO2, even to double the LIA level, will have almost no effect on global temperature. It is your interpretation of the HITRAN data that distorts the facts.
#15051023
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> First you claim I don't provide any sources; then when I provide a source, you say I have to actually REPLICATE the source's research?? Ah, no. If you think some paper on the list has not been accurately categorized as saying that the earth cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s, tell me which one and why, and I'll explain why your claim is incorrect.
And therein is your problem.

If a website tells you something is true and it fits your narrative then you swallow it without question.

It's not peer reviewed research, it does not include alll climate change research papers in the period and also includes multiple non reviewed papers from the same author to boost the numbers.

Finally you claimed scientific view was unanimous and yet the papers included do not overwhelmingly point to cooling and towards the end of the decade manage 52% :48%

I'm not asking you to replicate research, I'm asking you to look more carefully at the research you rely on.
#15051024
Truth To Power wrote:So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.

So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.

So, no evidence for your claims. That fits.

Then why can't you document it?

In the sense that his research showed anti-fossil-fuel hysteria was a crock of $#!+.

I didn't say Angstrom's observatinos were more accurate, just that they were accurate enough, and more recent ones have not overturned his conclusions.

I showed why they don't mean what you claim they mean.

Thanks for admitting he has never been disproved.

Narrow gaps, and already well saturated, so it does not justify anti-CO2 hysteria.

Again, nothing in that work suggests that the modest improvements in instrumentation support the claim that modest differences in CO2 concentration can produce large differences in global temperature.

It's trivial to replicate them.

The improved understanding just does not support anti-CO2 hysteria.

I'm not denying evidence, just what that evidence is interpreted to mean.

The HITRAN database showed I am correct: adding CO2, even to double the LIA level, will have almost no effect on global temperature. It is your interpretation of the HITRAN data that distorts the facts.


This is nothing more than word salad. Gray was a paid speaker and advisor to the Heartland institute, an organisation supported by the fossil fuel industry.
You can look at his own words for his view of modelling and using computers to assist in research.
I'll quote one scientist who was asked to approve his research and rejected it.

'The problem is not Gray’s age — we all revered Henry Stommel who did some of his finest work in his seventies. The problem is Gray’s failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. '

And in his own words
'Thou Shalt Not Bow Before Computer Terminals Nor Involve Thyself With Numerical Models.'

HITRAN isn't about interpretation, it's empirical measurement of the spectrum of gases.

If you have research using the HITRAN database that proves there is no gaps in the absorbtion bands of H2O then I'd love to see it.


Perhaps this trivial to replicate experiment should be easy to replicate. It is and when done Angstrom was found to be out by a factor of five. Why because his assistant carried out a flawed experiment and Angstrom assumed it was the end of the story.
This is his experiment done today and compared to his results,, notice the continued absorption outside of his narrow band of experimentation.
Image
#15051046
BeesKnee5 wrote:And therein is your problem.

No, yours.
If a website tells you something is true and it fits your narrative then you swallow it without question.

Garbage accusation without evidence.
It's not peer reviewed research,

Neither was Newton's Principia Mathematica.
it does not include alll climate change research papers in the period

That is a disingenuous objection because it included a lot more papers than the review it is refuting, and because one has to make a choice, and there will either be some that are not included but you say should have been, or some that are included that you say should not have been. If you think there is a more inclusive set of papers, identify it. Objection dismissed.
and also includes multiple non reviewed papers from the same author to boost the numbers.

Oh? Who? Which ones?
Finally you claimed scientific view was unanimous and yet the papers included do not overwhelmingly point to cooling and towards the end of the decade manage 52% :48%

I agree there was dissent -- as there is to the current "consensus."
I'm not asking you to replicate research, I'm asking you to look more carefully at the research you rely on.

I see no credible evidence that the review did not accurately represent the results of the papers.
#15051052
Truth To Power wrote:
No, yours.

Garbage accusation without evidence.

Neither was Newton's Principia Mathematica.

That is a disingenuous objection because it included a lot more papers than the review it is refuting, and because one has to make a choice, and there will either be some that are not included but you say should have been, or some that are included that you say should not have been. If you think there is a more inclusive set of papers, identify it. Objection dismissed.

Oh? Who? Which ones?

I agree there was dissent -- as there is to the current "consensus."

I see no credible evidence that the review did not accurately represent the results of the papers.



Doesn't matter in the slightest.

The Arctic is warming at a terrifying rate. Antarctic is melting, as is Greenland and most glaciers. I have watched, over the course of my life, the grow zones slide northward. When I was a kid, Maine had caribou, but not poisonous snakes. The caribou are gone, and poisonous snakes (along with the mid-Atlantic ecosystem) is slowly sliding North.

The scientific debate was over 20 years ago, now any damn fool can see it. Which means some people are a lot worse off than that.
Last edited by late on 26 Nov 2019 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15051053
Truth To Power wrote:No, yours.

Garbage accusation without evidence.

Neither was Newton's Principia Mathematica.

That is a disingenuous objection because it included a lot more papers than the review it is refuting, and because one has to make a choice, and there will either be some that are not included but you say should have been, or some that are included that you say should not have been. If you think there is a more inclusive set of papers, identify it. Objection dismissed.

Oh? Who? Which ones?

I agree there was dissent -- as there is to the current "consensus."

I see no credible evidence that the review did not accurately represent the results of the papers.


So you accept your earlier claim of consensus of cooling in the 1970s was false. Further to that your sharing of a WUWT article confirms it false even though it includes papers that have never been put to scrutiny ( if you are trying to equate them to Newton's principa then you really are off your tree).

I'm not going to spoil the fun as to which papers have been included that are not reviewed. I'll allow you to pick one and then I'll tell you all about it. If you look carefully at the papers added and where they were published, you might even work it out for yourself.
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 26 Nov 2019 20:39, edited 2 times in total.
#15051054
I clicked on one at random and it was not even a study.

Instead, it was a proposal that the US government seriously commit to understanding climate change. It was listed as “cooling confirmed”.

This one:
https://archive.org/stream/understandin ... t_djvu.txt

Go ahead, @Truth To Power, show us where it confirms cooling.
#15051056
Pants-of-dog wrote:I clicked on one at random and it was not even a study.

Instead, it was a proposal that the US government seriously commit to understanding climate change. It was listed as “cooling confirmed”.

This one:
https://archive.org/stream/understandin ... t_djvu.txt

Go ahead, @Truth To Power, show us where it confirms cooling.
Your spoiling all the fun :)
#15051215
Pants-of-dog wrote:I clicked on one at random and it was not even a study.

Instead, it was a proposal that the US government seriously commit to understanding climate change. It was listed as “cooling confirmed”.

This one:
https://archive.org/stream/understandin ... t_djvu.txt

Go ahead, @Truth To Power, show us where it confirms cooling.

"In summary, we may say that observational data at the earth's sur-
face show that during the period 1900 to 1940 the northern hemisphere
as a whole warmed, although some areas (mainly the Atlantic sector of
the Arctic and northern Siberia) warmed far more than the global
average, some areas became colder, and others showed little measurable
change (Mitchell, 1963). In the time since 1940, an overall cooling
has occurred
but is again characterized by a geographical structure;
cooling since 1958 has occurred in the subtropical arid regions and in
the Arctic (Starr and Oort, 1973)."

Appendix A, p 172

GG.
#15051219
Truth To Power wrote:
In the time since 1940, an overall cooling
has occurred



Congrats, you found one.

Doesn't matter, the science has not only moved on, it's gotten thousands of times better.

We have freaking climate change satellites, supercomputers, and enough money to do research that they didn't even dream about back then.

You're faking it badly.
#15051220
late wrote:Congrats, you found one.

Doesn't matter, the science has not only moved on, it's gotten thousands of times better.

We have freaking climate change satellites, supercomputers, and enough money to do research that they didn't dare even dream about back then.

You're faking it badly.

Which raises the musical question, how much of a fake are you?

#15051223
Truth To Power wrote:"In summary, we may say that observational data at the earth's sur-
face show that during the period 1900 to 1940 the northern hemisphere
as a whole warmed, although some areas (mainly the Atlantic sector of
the Arctic and northern Siberia) warmed far more than the global
average, some areas became colder, and others showed little measurable
change (Mitchell, 1963). In the time since 1940, an overall cooling
has occurred
but is again characterized by a geographical structure;
cooling since 1958 has occurred in the subtropical arid regions and in
the Arctic (Starr and Oort, 1973)."

Appendix A, p 172

GG.


So we see that this is actually referencing another study.

Now, if we look at the list you provided, we see that Starr and Oort 1973 is already mentioned.

So this is basically counting the same study twice.

And if we are trying to make an honest comparison, we would then strike this one from the list since it is a duplication.
#15051224
Pants-of-dog wrote:
So we see that this is actually referencing another study.

Now, if we look at the list you provided, we see that Starr and Oort 1973 is already mentioned.

So this is basically counting the same study twice.

And if we are trying to make an honest comparison, we would then strike this one from the list since it is a duplication.



Ouch.

It's almost like he has no idea what he's doing.

OK, who am I kidding.. 8)
#15051230
BeesKnee5 wrote:So you accept your earlier claim of consensus of cooling in the 1970s was false.

No, the claim of unanimity on the cooling that occurred from the 1940s to ~1970 was false -- but it was obviously an exaggeration anyway.
Further to that your sharing of a WUWT article confirms it false even though it includes papers that have never been put to scrutiny ( if you are trying to equate them to Newton's principa then you really are off your tree).

You are again just factually incorrect. The papers have all been put to scrutiny of various kinds by various scientists including multiple authors and publication supervisors. Anyone can scrutinize them and raise objections if they find scientific errors in them. Significantly, no one seems to have done so. They just haven't all been in forms that lent themselves to publication in peer-reviewed journals.
I'm not going to spoil the fun as to which papers have been included that are not reviewed. I'll allow you to pick one and then I'll tell you all about it. If you look carefully at the papers added and where they were published, you might even work it out for yourself.

So you can't support your claim, and admit it was false. Thought so.
#15051234
Truth To Power wrote:
Significantly, no one seems to have done so.



You haven't spent any time with scientists.

This is still obsolete, you are using it as a distraction... (Rule 2 of the Moscow Rules) to avoid the obvious.

That there is not only warming, but it is happening faster than scientists predicted.
#15051243
late wrote:You haven't spent any time with scientists.

False. I studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university.
This is still obsolete, you are using it as a distraction... (Rule 2 of the Moscow Rules) to avoid the obvious.

False.
That there is not only warming, but it is happening faster than scientists predicted.

That is also false. Anti-CO2 hysteria mongers purporting to be scientists predicted rapid warming in pace with the more or less exponential increase in atmospheric CO2; but the earth has not been warming. It has been cooling. Only the routine and often retroactive falsification of temperature data preserves the preposterous claims of the anti-CO2 hysterics from the laughter of the whole world.
#15051246
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we see that this is actually referencing another study.

No, the report references many other studies. That is why it represents the consensus.
Now, if we look at the list you provided, we see that Starr and Oort 1973 is already mentioned.

So this is basically counting the same study twice.

No. That is false. If the point at issue were the content of Starr and Oort -- that temperature declined from the 1940s to the 1970s -- it would be counting the same study twice. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether there was a consensus that temperature had declined from the 1940s to the 1970s. The report -- by multiple eminent scientists -- that references Starr and Oort (and scores of other papers) is therefore evidence for the consensus independent of the Starr and Oort paper.
And if we are trying to make an honest comparison, we would then strike this one from the list since it is a duplication.

Nope. Wrong. Refuted above.
#15051248
Truth To Power wrote:No, the claim of unanimity on the cooling that occurred from the 1940s to ~1970 was false -- but it was obviously an exaggeration anyway.

You are again just factually incorrect. The papers have all been put to scrutiny of various kinds by various scientists including multiple authors and publication supervisors. Anyone can scrutinize them and raise objections if they find scientific errors in them. Significantly, no one seems to have done so. They just haven't all been in forms that lent themselves to publication in peer-reviewed journals.

So you can't support your claim, and admit it was false. Thought so.


This has already been thoroughly blown out of the water by another poster. POD has offered you an example and shown that it is not a scientific research paper, nor does it contain anything more than a reference to a paper already included in the study.

As I already pointed out they are added to skew the figures and are not genuine peer reviewed research papers that have been published in scientific journals to be open to analysis by fellow researchers.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]