- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:22 am to MastrShake
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:22 am to MastrShake
quote:
So with all this and more in mind, why is it impossible to believe that were effecting temperature as well?
Fairy tales, religion, and politics are about belief.
Science is about fact.
When fairy tales, religion, and politics pollute science, as they do in this case, the question "why is it impossible to believe" is no more relevant to actual science than it would be if the science was the only consideration.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a forcing agent. Even a single molecule in the atmosphere has some effect. That is the extent of the science.
Unfortunately it is not the extent of the answer.
The question isn't as to any effect, it is as to quantifying the effect CO2 has within a complex buffered terrestrium, and how does that quantification overlay known climatic variability of the ice age. As we have little firm scientific assurance of cause or predicament of the latter variability, we have limited basis for measuring overlay.
But feel free to "believe" what you want.
1
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:26 am to MastrShake
Is one year being a fraction of a degree colder or hotter than the other really "climate change"?
Climate types consist of stuff like tundra, humid subtropical, etc.
Which climate types across the world are being reclassified or changing because of global warming?
Climate types consist of stuff like tundra, humid subtropical, etc.
Which climate types across the world are being reclassified or changing because of global warming?
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:29 am to texag7
Come on, Tex. They aren't changing. It's the FEAR that they will one day.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:30 am to Iosh
quote:Well my goodness, there it is.
climate science has frick all to do with your Camp of the Saints bullshite. Africa isn't just going to sit around and never industrialize
The US should tax and energy limit ourselves to mediocrity so Africa can "industrialize" and over-populate at will.
By golly, that sounds just like the UN position.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:41 am to NC_Tigah
You know what really helps with lowering birth rates? It rhymes with "industrialization." Wait did I say "rhymes with" I meant "is."
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:45 am to Errerrerrwere
Some people say climate change is happening though. Which is false.
It's all weather and temp variance within the climate.
No climates to my knowledge have changed to a different climate in my lifetime.
It's all weather and temp variance within the climate.
No climates to my knowledge have changed to a different climate in my lifetime.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:In January of 2016 there was 33GW under construction and 223 GW on hold. This January there was 273 GW under construction and 607 GW on hold.
So we have the specifics of ""a ton"" juxtaposed against expansion of "the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent."
New construction dropped off 62% from last year and projects in the pre-construction phase dropped off 48%.
As for you planned "expansion" of 43%, right now only 37% of planned coal plant capacity has been implemented over the last 7 years and that number is dropping fast.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:49 am to Iosh
quote:Golly, and to think I was under the impression the answer was condoms, education, and responsibility.
You know what really helps with lowering birth rates?
OTOH accounting for baby-boomers, the US must have done one hell of a lot of deindustrialization in the two decades following WWII.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I don't know what you're going off on about here, or why. The phrasing? Is that what set you off? Is this better...
Fairy tales, religion, and politics are about belief. Science is about fact. When fairy tales, religion, and politics pollute science, as they do in this case, the question "why is it impossible to believe" is no more relevant to actual science than it would be if the science was the only consideration.
"So with all this and more in mind, why is it impossible to THINK that we're effecting temperature as well?"
if so, just pretend I wrote that.
quote:I'm not sure what you're saying here either.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a forcing agent. Even a single molecule in the atmosphere has some effect. That is the extent of the science.
When you say, "That is the extent of the science", are you saying that's all we know about CO2? Or forcing agents? Or how they effect temperature?
Because obviously there are other agents. People think natural gas is "cleaner" than coal, and it is in many ways like producing half the CO2. But natural gas is mostly methane, which traps about 30X more heat in the atmosphere then CO2.
That very clearly effects temperature.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 12:56 am to mmcgrath
quote:Right . . . and China signed the Paris accord too.
As for you planned "expansion" of 43%, right now only 37% of planned coal plant capacity has been implemented over the last 7 years and that number is dropping fast.
In separate news, Sahuang is the Chinese word for "lie".
Coincidentally it is also the Chinese nickname for the Paris Accord.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 1:10 am to MastrShake
quote:Not after ignition.
But natural gas is mostly methane
quote:The reference is to effect on climate. I presumed that to be obvious.
When you say, "That is the extent of the science", are you saying that's all we know about CO2? Or forcing agents? Or how they effect temperature?
In an environment where modeling is so crude as to leave 'experts' uncertain whether the Arctic was to be ice-free in 2013 or 2016 or will be 2040 or at any point in the next 100,000 years, it seems fair to say there are aspects of our understanding that are at least unclear.
Juxtapose that lack of scientific understanding with the politics of unilateral US energy limitations, and you're left with an imprudent mess whose attainment is only possible thru focus on fairytale rather than fact.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 2:19 am to MastrShake
quote:
why do you think this? and im not trying to be combative, its an honest question. because its just baffling to me.
Follow the money. Redistribution of wealth, increased taxation with more govt control, grant funds
quote:
we cause earthquakes...
But is the entire globe shaking?
quote:
"...3000 million litres of untreated sewage from these towns along the Ganges
Now wheres the pic of the Mississippi? Is every river polluted?
quote:
this is smog in China from burning coal
Show me a pic of DC? Is the entire globe smogged in?
Youre applying individual and limited areas of human pollution, and therefore saying it is happening on a global basis. It is not
The same BS was said about the ozone hole. Guess what? Last year was one of the largest areas ever. We haven't fixed anything. We just quit talking about it, and it isn't killing us. Like we were promised
Posted on 7/7/17 at 2:27 am to LSU2a
quote:
Confirmation bias is a bitch.
uh, they removed the bias. And compared the actual raw data. No warming trend
When you insert the bias, artificially inserting adjusted data, that's when the warming occurs. And by what master plan do they follow to adjust data? There isn't one. Its all guesswork. All you have to know is this:
See that little red area labeled 'record heat'? Wanna know something? Every data point in there is guesswork. Some of the closest measuring devices are 200 miles away.
So what did NOAA do? Just assigned numbers, and then screamed "Record Heat", based on their assigned data. That has never existed. Ever. Because isn't odd that right next to it (where the measuring devices are) is labeled 'cooler than average'? Yet where they hand picked temps, its record heat
bullshite
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 2:34 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 6:34 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:The funniest thing about that is that it will warm up, significantly at some point and there isn't a damn thing that can be done to prevent it.
Come on, Tex. They aren't changing. It's the FEAR that they will one day.
Just like it has done several times previously in the planet's history
Posted on 7/7/17 at 6:39 am to RobbBobb
quote:
But is the entire globe shaking?
quote:
Is every river polluted?
quote:
Is the entire globe smogged in?
Now there's some "settled science."
Posted on 7/7/17 at 6:51 am to RobbBobb
Have the libs lost their mind about Idso being an author of this report yet?
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:13 am to WeeWee
General question. If a hypothesis leads one to make predictions as to the future affects of the subject of the hypothesis, and those affects don't manifest themselves in the stated time frame..and nothing changes or the opposite happens.. does that hypothesis need to be disregarded and seen as false?
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:18 am to RobbBobb
Sorry my original post was hard to comprehend. What I was trying to say is that this study is being used as evidence against AGW despite the countless studies that promote the opposite. It's convenient that only the studies that agree with your particular preconception are correct and the other studies are disregarded. This reeks of confirmation bias.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:20 am to LSU2a
quote:
What I was trying to say is that this study is being used as evidence against AGW despite the countless studies that promote the opposite.
Science is based on facts..not studies. Have the dire predictions of the last half century..predictions based on "studies"..come to pass or not?
quote:
It's convenient that only the studies that agree with your particular preconception are correct and the other studies are disregarded. This reeks of confirmation bias.
You're projecting again.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:23 am to LSU2a
quote:Promote, predict.
Sorry my original post was hard to comprehend. What I was trying to say is that this study is being used as evidence against AGW despite the countless studies that promote the opposite.
You'd think as much money as they throw at it the AGW believers would be right at least once
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News