cvfd1399 0 #51 April 6, 2015 Everyone on this forum seems to have made up their minds on -Guns -Global whatever the hell you want to call it -Political this or that -Lawyers -Politicians -Cops -Taxes -Immigration -GMO food -Gays -Other races -ETC -ETC I can see why no one tries around here anymore, its a circle jerk dumpster fire where the only goal is to fly under the mods radar and sling insults. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #52 April 6, 2015 cvfd1399Everyone on this forum seems to have made up their minds on -Guns -Global whatever the hell you want to call it -Political this or that -Lawyers -Politicians -Cops -Taxes -Immigration -GMO food -Gays -Other races -ETC -ETC I can see why no one tries around here anymore, its a circle jerk dumpster fire where the only goal is to fly under the mods radar and sling insults. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #53 April 6, 2015 cvfd1399Everyone on this forum seems to have made up their minds on -Guns -Global whatever the hell you want to call it -Political this or that -Lawyers -Politicians -Cops -Taxes -Immigration -GMO food -Gays -Other races -ETC -ETC I can see why no one tries around here anymore, its a circle jerk dumpster fire where the only goal is to fly under the mods radar and sling insults. Will anything convince you otherwise? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #54 April 6, 2015 kallend***Everyone on this forum seems to have made up their minds on -Guns -Global whatever the hell you want to call it -Political this or that -Lawyers -Politicians -Cops -Taxes -Immigration -GMO food -Gays -Other races -ETC -ETC I can see why no one tries around here anymore, its a circle jerk dumpster fire where the only goal is to fly under the mods radar and sling insults. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. The usual bullshit venom spewing from you. Go soak up some more public funds and do a flawed irrelevant paper, or indoctrinate some more kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #55 April 6, 2015 > Whether 2014 was the warmest year depends on whom you ask. Absolutely. If you ask a scientist, you get a "yes." If you ask a denier, you get a "no." >Rush says no warming and cites data to prove it. That sort of equivalency claims that there is no real truth. No one knows if vaccines are more likely to give you autism than make you immune to disease, because someone cited some data that says it does. No one knows if evolution happens, because someone cited some data that says God did it. No one knows if the Earth is flat or round, because people can't agree on exactly what shape it is. See, here's a quote that says it's an oblate spheriod, and another that says it's round. If scientists can't agree, then there's NO CONSENSUS. And that's fine if you are able to adjust your reality to conform to your political beliefs. That might work quite well in your profession; for mine, it doesn't. >Warmest year is an objective conclusion reached through. Subjective selection process. So what isn't subjective, to you? Clearly every physical constant is. Avogadro's number? Varies based on how many digits they subjectively and arbitrarily decide to use. Planck's Constant? Completely subjective. Since everyone does not post exactly the same digits, there's NO CONSENSUS! And any physicist who claims that Planck's Constant is the most basic division of action in quantum mechanics is clearly a loonie liberal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #56 April 6, 2015 cvfd1399******Everyone on this forum seems to have made up their minds on -Guns -Global whatever the hell you want to call it -Political this or that -Lawyers -Politicians -Cops -Taxes -Immigration -GMO food -Gays -Other races -ETC -ETC I can see why no one tries around here anymore, its a circle jerk dumpster fire where the only goal is to fly under the mods radar and sling insults. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. The usual bullshit venom spewing from you. Go soak up some more public funds and do a flawed irrelevant paper, or indoctrinate some more kids. Just to let everyone know mike was banned for this post. Let that be a lesson here. Liberals can sling insults all day, but don't let a fucking non liberal say a damn thing back. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #57 April 6, 2015 Wow. Sadly I'm never surprised in here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #58 April 6, 2015 billvon> Whether 2014 was the warmest year depends on whom you ask. Absolutely. If you ask a scientist, you get a "yes." If you ask a denier, you get a "no." So it is your contention that any person who relies even in part upon RSS data is not a scientist. Ben Santer is not a scientist. I guess Christy and Spencer (who maintain and publish UAH dataset) are also not scientists. Bill. This is where you have gone from reasonable to alarmist. If a person does not toe the line that person is a not a scientist. This means that under your definition 100% of scientists agree. This is something that not even Nuccitelli would say. It's dis appointing that of all people you would ignore two data sets and disparage those who actually collected them and even Jose who analyzed them. You've now reached the top of the pyramid of climate alarm. All contrRy evidence is to be ignored and those who pin it out are to be disparaged. Willful ignorance of evidence is antiscience. Bible thumpers call non believers ignorant and willfully ignore evidence contrary to their dogma. Quote>Rush says no warming and cites data to prove it. That sort of equivalency claims that there is no real truth. No one knows if vaccines are more likely to give you autism than make you immune to disease, because someone cited some data that says it does. No one knows if evolution happens, because someone cited some data that says God did it. No one knows if the Earth is flat or round, because people can't agree on exactly what shape it is. See, here's a quote that says it's an oblate spheriod, and another that says it's round. If scientists can't agree, then there's NO CONSENSUS. This I an do I of shit and false equivalency. As you know the issue is about falsifiability. Science is about an idea that can be falsified. The RSS data shows over the last 35 years that the troposphere has warmed significantly and the global temperature has risen an average of 0.13 Celsius per decade. Climate models cannot explain this warming in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and the spatial pattern is consistent with human-induced warming. This is what RSS shows. This would in most circumstances be just fine with AGW proponents and consistent with the science. But what is the problem that alarmists have with this dataset? Yep. .13 per decade is well below nearly all climate model projections. RSS data is not detested for showing warming. RSS data is detested and if it's because it does not show enough warming. Climate science is dominated by modeling. Climate alarmists are dominated by their faith in what models project will happen. If the models say warming should have been .8 degrees Celsius since 1998 then dammit there is a problem with any dataset that doesn't show it. This is why satellite data are not liked. The satellites present a different perspective from the land based readings (and a hell of a lot more data points). And that's fine if you are able to adjust your reality to conform to your political beliefs. That might work quite well in your profession; for mine, it doesn't. It's not good enough that the satellites provide good proof of AGW. They don't provide proof of catastrophic AGW nand that is what the advocates want Quote>Warmest year is an objective conclusion reached through. Subjective selection process. So what isn't subjective, to you? Clearly every physical constant is. Avogadro's number? Varies based on how many digits they subjectively and arbitrarily decide to use. Planck's Constant? Completely subjective. Since everyone does not post exactly the same digits, there's NO CONSENSUS! You've gone beyond reduction ad absurdum to reduction as nauseum. I take it that if you are running tests and you have four meters that show thatba battery, for example, is putting out 12.6 volts at a controlled temp, pressure, etc, but that there are separate measurements showing that it is putting out 12.3 volts that you would not simply say to forget those measurements. It would require some investigation. And if it is discovered that there is a different methodology used in the measurement and analysis, then it would be a responsibility to acknowledge it. Objective. Bill wrote "so what isn't objective to you?" No argument, that's what you wrote. Subjective: bill is suggesting that I am drawing a line too close and moving into philosophy. Or, bill is just being rhetorically sarcastic. Or, Bill is asking a simple question that he would like a long draw out answer. Objective: NASA data shows 2014 as the warmest year ever measured. There is no reasonable argument to the contrary. Objective: RSS does not show 2014 as the warmest year. Again, no reasonable argument to the contrary. Objective: NASA, JAMA, NOAA and many others find 2014 as the warmest year ever measured. No reasonable argument. Objective fact is something that is not falsifiable. It is probable true. Here's an example: what time is it? Look at your watch or your phone or computer or clock. Odds are they all are pretty close but also disagree. Can you state, "it is a fact that the time is 3:13 pm pacific Daylight time?" No. There is evidence that it is 3:14 pm. Fortunately, there is an answer available at the US Naval Observatory and what it says goes. Of course, in most circumstances it's not a big deal. A person with one clock is pretty sure of what time it is. A person with two clocks is never quite sure. Uncertainty in terms of science should be stated and discussed and not ignored. In engineering you have tolerances. And whatever measurement it better be precise. you can absolutely say "we've got 12.6 volts." But once other data comes up suggesting 12.4, then you can say, "my measurements show 12.6 volts" Antiscience is ignoring evidence. You are advocating. It's what lawyers do. The best lawyers pay attention to contrary evidence and try to a plan why hat evidence is unreliable or erroneous. But ignoring it is not a good way to get ahead. QuoteAnd any physicist who claims that Planck's Constant is the most basic division of action in quantum mechanics is clearly a loonie liberal. I disagree. Any quantum physicist who denies the importance of gravity in the universe, though, should have his or her head examined. I can fully agree that Gravity has no role in the interplay of particles. Heck, one could prove that the angles of a triangle equal the sum of 180 degrees. Then someone like me might jump and and say, "what about a triangle on the surface of a sphere?" To which you may call me a loony denier because triangles total 180 degrees. Then I woukd reply, "in a two dimensional triangle you are correct and I will not disagree once the parameters are set." So my question is, why isn't it enough to say that NASA says it's the warmest year ever? Is it because it opens the door to examining other evidence that may interfere with the already reached conclusion? It's why I describe myself as a Luke warmist. You know I was a hardcore denier a decade ago. You more than anybody used reason and logic to show me the error of my thinking and the ignorance with which I was operating. I still thank you immensely for educating me and for making me want to know better what the hell I was talking about. I want that bill back. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #59 April 7, 2015 >Bill. This is where you have gone from reasonable to alarmist. In what way? What alarm am I spreading? >If a person does not toe the line that person is a not a scientist. No. If a person prefers politically correct speech over facts, then they are not scientists (at least in my book.) They are politicians. >This I an do I of shit and false equivalency. Sorry, couldn't parse that. >The RSS data shows over the last 35 years that the troposphere has warmed >significantly and the global temperature has risen an average of 0.13 Celsius per >decade. Climate models cannot explain this warming in the absence of anthropogenic >emissions of greenhouse gases and the spatial pattern is consistent with human- >induced warming. Agreed. >Yep. .13 per decade is well below nearly all climate model projections. ?? It's below some of them. It matches others pretty well. It is higher than some. This is one of the many ways science works - you make predictions, see which one is valid, then refine your models. >I take it that if you are running tests and you have four meters that show thatba >battery, for example, is putting out 12.6 volts at a controlled temp, pressure, etc, >but that there are separate measurements showing that it is putting out 12.3 volts >that you would not simply say to forget those measurements. If you had four measurements, saying: 12.61v 12.62V 12.61V 12.61V You could conclude "the battery is at approximately 12.61 volts." You might even conclude "maybe we should recalibrate the meters." However, if your conclusion was "we have NO IDEA what voltage the battery is! No one agrees! THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!" then I would doubt your skills as an engineer. And if it was further revealed that you had a political reason to deny that batteries work, then you would be firmly in the politician arena, rather than the science arena. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #60 April 7, 2015 I never said the conclusion is we have no idea what the voltage f the battery is. Estimates are fine with most things but estimates aren't facts. If one wants to say the voltage is about 12.61 then that is fine. My issue is stating absolutes like warmest year ever. In another post you correctly pointed out whichbdata sets indicate it. That's fine. I'm not willing to say 2014 was not the warmest. The furthest I'll go is that it probably was. Re: making predictions GVMs do not make predictions. They make projections. They are by nature not falsifiable since they are predicated on assumptions. They run. Find out what is wrong and make corrections. This is not deductive science. That's much more akin to engineering. (Engineering is based on science. But they have different goals I think that the latter point is crucial to understanding what models do and what they do not do. GCMs are not testable predictions. They are projections. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #61 April 7, 2015 >I never said the conclusion is we have no idea what the voltage f the battery is. >Estimates are fine with most things but estimates aren't facts. If one wants to say the >voltage is about 12.61 then that is fine. Agreed. Unfortunately there are those who claim that since one dataset disagrees, that therefore we don't know anything. Is there a possibility that the voltage on the battery was actually 0 volts, and that we were measuring a never-before-seen effect where the difference in metals between the battery posts and the meter leads generated exactly the voltage we were expecting? Yes, there's that possibility. However it is so remote that it is not worth considering. >I'm not willing to say 2014 was not the warmest. The furthest I'll go is that it probably >was. OK cool. >I think that the latter point is crucial to understanding what models do and what they >do not do. GCMs are not testable predictions. They are projections. OK. I'd say they are testable predictions - and projections. Their validity depends on a great many things, including the validity of the underlying assumptions. As we gain experience with them their accuracy improves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #62 April 7, 2015 >>> Agreed. Unfortunately there are those who claim that since one dataset disagrees, that therefore we don't know anything. That isn't me. And understanding that if datasets disagree it is just a disagreement. But to me it is enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether 2014 was the warmest year we've measured. I don't know this. To say we don't know anything because information conflicts is like saying that we know everything despite the conflicting information. And if it is anything similar to most other topics, the more we learn the more questions we have. Why is the satellite data somewhat inconsistent with model projections and with land based measurements? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JWest 0 #63 April 7, 2015 Legitimate question, are either of you educated in the field of engineering, or physics? Even mathematical statistics.? A rather basic understanding of thermodynamics can completely solve what seems to be incoherent rambling. I'm going to assume neither of you. Based on the second law of thermodynamics alone everything is heating up. Now regardless of what you think or want to believe air temp is a much lesser issue than ocean temp http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html see when the ocean heats up the density of the water decreases, the volume increases. The ocean has been rising http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/ Along with the increase in sea level the ocean is also absorbing more CO2 than ever before. This is causing carbonic acid, raising the acidity of the ocean to increase. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ So to dismiss your pointless rambling weather you believe it or not it's happening and if for some reason you don't like the links I have provided hop on https://scholar.google.com and type in any of the subjects I mentioned. One more for good measure https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ If none of those do it for you than you are hopeless and all I can ask is for you to not to vote anymore. Let the people who care about the preservation of the human species make the important decisions. This section of the forum should really be below all the skydiving stuff, even if it is the main source of traffic/income. It's embarrassing for this to be the first thing people see when they visit the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 April 7, 2015 Just to clarify, I post what I do because the science is not settled. To the dismay of some"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #65 April 7, 2015 JWestLegitimate question, are either of you educated in the field of engineering, or physics? Even mathematical statistics.? A rather basic understanding of thermodynamics can completely solve what seems to be incoherent rambling. I'm going to assume neither of you. Why don't you thrill us with your qualifications? QuoteSo to dismiss your pointless rambling weather Quote If none of those do it for you than you are hopeless and all I can ask is for you to not to vote anymore. I see you've been reading. Here's a link to study... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0cg91rK2o You get an A for arrogance. BTW...it's whether not weather.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 April 7, 2015 JWest This section of the forum should really be below all the skydiving stuff, even if it is the main source of traffic/income. It's embarrassing for this to be the first thing people see when they visit the forum. No one is forcing you to come here But you brought up ocean temps as if that is a settled point to. Sorry, its not take your pick http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=ocean+temp"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #67 April 7, 2015 rushmc*** This section of the forum should really be below all the skydiving stuff, even if it is the main source of traffic/income. It's embarrassing for this to be the first thing people see when they visit the forum. No one is forcing you to come here But you brought up ocean temps as if that is a settled point to. Sorry, its not take your pick http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=ocean+temp Repeatedly linking to wattsupwiththat does as much for your credibility as using Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh for your source.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #68 April 7, 2015 Bottom three rows"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #69 April 7, 2015 I have zero training in science or engineering. Purely autodidactic knowledge. Bill is one of the too five most intelligent people I've ever met and apparently has significant engineering training. From MIT or something. And is a good man, to boot. >>> based on second law of thermodynamics everything is heating up. Well, to be more accurate and broad based everything is actually cooling down. Over the next few trillion years it'll be bad. But in be nearer term, yes, the sun will boil off the seas. Within about a billion years. But plant life will be gone long before then, anyway. The habitable earth is approaching its golden years. Regarding ocean temps: I'd recommend you google fly wheel and ocean. Re: ocean acidification. Why not start your own thread? Acidification. Is an interesting issue My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #70 April 7, 2015 rushmcJust to clarify, I post what I do because the science is not settled. To the dismay of some Falling right in line http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/08/27/174784/koch-warming-hoax/ Koch Industries Tells Its 80,000 Employees: Global Warming Is A Hoax by Brad Johnson Posted on August 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm The Koch Industries scions, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, have not only polluted American politics with global warming denial, but also barraged their employees with right-wing, anti-science propaganda for years. Koch Industries is one of the largest private companies in the world, with about $100 billion in annual revenues and 80,000 employees. The Koch brothers are virulently right-wing ideologues who have spent decades attempting to prevent regulation of their toxic pollution — including oil refining, formaldehyde, and industrial agriculture — through a network of hard-right think tanks and astroturf groups. Exploring the Wichita-based Koch Industries in-house newsletter, “Discovery,” the Wonk Room has found that Koch Industries propagandizes its own employees — from the Flint Hills Resources refining group to the Georgia Pacific paper consumer products giant — with global warming denialism. Koch’s corporate climate denial cites the very front groups that it funds, such as the American Council on Capital Formation, Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JWest 0 #71 April 7, 2015 lawrocketI have zero training in science or engineering. Purely autodidactic knowledge. Bill is one of the too five most intelligent people I've ever met and apparently has significant engineering training. From MIT or something. And is a good man, to boot. Then why are you continuously arranging with someone that has the knowledge to better understand the issue? The biggest thing I think you are missing is that even the person who runs that website agrees that global warming is a thing. He just believes that it is driven more by nature than by C02 emissions. He even said that CO2 could be a small part of it. I ask you a yes or no question, is the average climate increasing in temperature? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 April 7, 2015 QuoteThen why are you continuously arranging with someone that has the knowledge to better understand the issue? Because by discussing things we learn and adapt...well some of us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #74 April 7, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteThen why are you continuously arranging with someone that has the knowledge to better understand the issue? Because by discussing things we learn and adapt...well some of us. there is still hope for you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 April 7, 2015 JWest***I have zero training in science or engineering. Purely autodidactic knowledge. Bill is one of the too five most intelligent people I've ever met and apparently has significant engineering training. From MIT or something. And is a good man, to boot. Then why are you continuously arranging with someone that has the knowledge to better understand the issue? from a post above: QuoteIt's why I describe myself as a Luke warmist. You know I was a hardcore denier a decade ago. You more than anybody used reason and logic to show me the error of my thinking and the ignorance with which I was operating. I still thank you immensely for educating me and for making me want to know better what the hell I was talking about. Because I learn. And you raised an important thing: better understands the issue. What is the issue? QuoteThe biggest thing I think you are missing is that even the person who runs that website agrees that global warming is a thing. He just believes that it is driven more by nature than by C02 emissions. He even said that CO2 could be a small part of it. I'm not missing that. QuoteI ask you a yes or no question, is the average climate increasing in temperature? Yes. I have states my interpretation repeatedly I'll say it again. The earth has been warming. It will continue to warm. Human activity plays a role in the warming. However, the observational data indicates that the warming has been marginal. I therefore believe that based upon observations, that future warming (both natural and anthropogenic components) will be marginal and well within human ability to adapt. Question for you. Do you know what this is? ((1-a)S)/4=eoT^4 I prefer not to simply view conclusions. I like to see the work. Understanding this is what turned me from denier. One does not need to understand the science to understand and identify flaws in logic. For example, see this post. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4613621#4613621 I did the work and examined his data sources and his assumptions. I can only assume that Dr. Mann and the SA editors assumed that nobody would actually take a look. I deny that one needs a hard sciences background to look at citations and see that the assumptions do not comport with the data sets. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites