| Forum Index > General Forum |
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
climate scientists =/= scientists Climate science is so piss poor in quality. At this point, I'm partial to putting them on level with alchemists. A few in there are pretty good though. I also think it is a prerequisite to believe in man-made global warming theory prior to becoming a climate scientist. Naturally there are very few skeptics among the crowd. It's a natural phenomenon when science gets politicized. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
The latest Climate-gate shoe to drop is the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) accusation that the Hadley Center of Britain's Meteorological Office deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming. Indeed it's well known that the Institute of Economic Analysis is a reputable source of paleoclimate research. I guess the coffin of AGW has been sealed. Climate science is so piss poor in quality. At this point, I'm partial to putting them on level with alchemists. A few in there are pretty good though. I also think it is a prerequisite to believe in man-made global warming theory prior to becoming a climate scientist. Naturally there are very few skeptics among the crowd. It's a natural phenomenon when science gets politicized. It's the same way most physicists believe in relativity and most biologists believe in evolution. | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On February 17 2010 08:24 TanGeng wrote: Climate science is so piss poor in quality. At this point, I'm partial to putting them on level with alchemists. *facepalm* | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
It's the same way most physicists believe in relativity Compared to the precision which relativity is tested millions of times daily (GPS) almost everything seems like soft science. Quantum mechanics would probably be a better thing to compare to the weather. But our cat still has better odds than your 5 day forecast! ^_^ | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
The thermometer chronology folks for example do all sorts of adjustments to revise the more recent temperatures upwards to confirm their warming bias. They hardly do anything so thorough to capture the warming effects of human land use and other human activities. (It all has to be carbon dioxide.) The climate models run on supercomputers are pure trash. Anyone that's seen econometric modeling would know how the sausage is being made. Climate models may be the best effort man has made to predict future climate but the best effort by no means good or adequate. (like alchemists' best efforts to turn iron into gold, ha!) The paleo-climatologists especially those dentro types have this notion that their trees are great indicators of temperature despite rainfall, moisture, soil fertility, and accident to individual trees having great effect on growth as well. Then we're suppose to believe that trees are good thermometers despite 60 years of divergence. That's nearly 30% of the entire reliable thermometer record. (They might as well say they have no clue what is going on.) Those studying clouds have the notion that warming will receive a positive feedback if upper troposphere water vapor increases and that's definitely what will happen. Their studies confirm their biases, of course, but only after they've eliminated all data that would invalidate their theory. The upper oceans is cooling. There hasn't been significant warming trend for more than a decade. The AGW theory states that carbon dioxide causes warming which then causes climate change. So how does carbon dioxide cause climate change directly without manifesting itself as warming? The new climate change narrative is a complete non sequitir. It doesn't mean that human activity or carbon dioxide doesn't have any effect, but the efforts of these climate scientists to exaggerate the social relevance of their research is ridiculous. Cue more mental gymnastics now. | ||
|
StayFrosty
Canada743 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 25 2010 08:35 StayFrosty wrote: The climate change crisis is real. Just accept it! Yes sir! I am a drone. I will do my overlords tell me to do. I will believe what my overlords tell me to believe. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On February 25 2010 08:52 TanGeng wrote: Yes sir! I am a drone. I will do my overlords tell me to do. I will believe what my overlords tell me to believe. Pot kettle black. More of a pot porcelain black though. | ||
|
radiumz0rz
United States253 Posts
On November 22 2009 10:07 Vedic wrote: 31,000+ scientists have signed a petition against man-made global warming theories. Did you not even watch the senate debate? Global warming is an effect of climate change. Climate change means more extreme temperatures and weather patterns which hurts everyone. | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On February 17 2010 06:06 crabapple wrote: For anyone interested in the global warming debate in general, this video is a rich addition to your body of info. Oh god. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 25 2010 09:07 radiumz0rz wrote: Global warming is an effect of climate change. Climate change means more extreme temperatures and weather patterns which hurts everyone. Climate change could mean anything. It's so vague as to lose all meaning. To say that humans should do something to abate climate change would have a few prerequisites. 1. Qualify and quantify what human activities cause climate change and measure it accordingly. Just to say that there is climate change is insufficient because there is and has always been climate change in the form of natural variability. The leap of faith to blame it all on carbon dioxide is insufficient as human heat and particle pollution and land use have real and lasting effects. "Climate scientists" love to hand wave the 1960's 1970's cooling period on human aerosol production. It's so unscientific. 2. Develop and design methods to counteract human sources of climate change. 3. Make a value judgment on whether or not countering human sources of climate change is worthwhile. The other question is do humans want to play God on earth and try to keep all climates around the world static and even try to counter natural variability? Also if carbon dioxide is to blame, then a prerequisite for climate change has to be global warming. Greenhouse gasses cannot affect global climate without first raising global temperatures. There is no proposed mechanism for direct relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change. There is no also good evidence that climate has gotten more extreme. This year is par for El Nino. And also shit happens. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
Don't make posts like this. Either contribute to & continue the discussion, or don't post. | ||
|
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
And hey, here's another one! I'm gonna look through your last 50 posts. edit: looks clean! stop making posts like this though | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On February 25 2010 09:56 PobTheCad wrote: so when did they stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change never? global warming is a scientific theory that involves a type of climate change... | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: The thermometer chronology folks for example do all sorts of adjustments to revise the more recent temperatures upwards to confirm their warming bias. They hardly do anything so thorough to capture the warming effects of human land use and other human activities. (It all has to be carbon dioxide.) Elaborate on these adjustments of recent temperatures. On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: The climate models run on supercomputers are pure trash. Anyone that's seen econometric modeling would know how the sausage is being made. Climate models may be the best effort man has made to predict future climate but the best effort by no means good or adequate. (like alchemists' best efforts to turn iron into gold, ha!) Yeah, modeling the behavior of air masses and the behavior of people is just slightly different. Are the models that test circuitry or airplanes also pure trash? On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: The paleo-climatologists especially those dentro types have this notion that their trees are great indicators of temperature despite rainfall, moisture, soil fertility, and accident to individual trees having great effect on growth as well. Indeed, the correlation prior to sixty years ago correlates well with the existing temperature record, and prior to that, it correlates well with other proxies of temperatures as well. Curiously enough, rainfall and moisture are also related to climate. On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: Then we're suppose to believe that trees are good thermometers despite 60 years of divergence. That's nearly 30% of the entire reliable thermometer record. (They might as well say they have no clue what is going on.) That would be inaccurate as to explain the null hypothesis of no correlation is rejected when analyzing data from before the divergence problem, so unless you want to throw up your hands and claim that the rejection of the null hypothesis at high confidence levels is all some sort of massive coincidence, then the divergence problem is recent. On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: Those studying clouds have the notion that warming will receive a positive feedback if upper troposphere water vapor increases and that's definitely what will happen. Their studies confirm their biases, of course, but only after they've eliminated all data that would invalidate their theory. And what "data that would invalidate their theory" is running around that you know of? On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: The upper oceans is cooling. Source? On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: There hasn't been significant warming trend for more than a decade. Warming is a long-term signal that over the short-term is swamped by natural variation. If you were to look at three-year trends then even the most drastic changes would not show significant warming at the 95% levels due to the broad spread of trends over short time periods. On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: The AGW theory states that carbon dioxide causes warming which then causes climate change. So how does carbon dioxide cause climate change directly without manifesting itself as warming? The new climate change narrative is a complete non sequitir. The warming may lead to many other changes beyond simple warming. You can feel free to use the term "global warming," though, nobody's going to criticize or get mad at you. On February 24 2010 03:35 TanGeng wrote: 1. Qualify and quantify what human activities cause climate change and measure it accordingly. Just to say that there is climate change is insufficient because there is and has always been climate change in the form of natural variability. The leap of faith to blame it all on carbon dioxide is insufficient as human heat and particle pollution and land use have real and lasting effects. "Climate scientists" love to hand wave the 1960's 1970's cooling period on human aerosol production. It's so unscientific. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png) | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 25 2010 11:15 EmeraldSparks wrote: Indeed, the correlation prior to sixty years ago correlates well with the existing temperature record, and prior to that, it correlates well with other proxies of temperatures as well. Curiously enough, rainfall and moisture are also related to climate. This one is easy. NO. You are looking for a single principle component in the multivariate analysis not the combination of two or three or four or five. If we are looking at a combination of rainfall, moisture, sun, carbon dioxide and temperature then there is no basis for saying that the past was any cooler than the present. It's a combination of all those factors right? If the present decline was some change in climate (i.e. all the other factors) what rules out that previous increases and declines weren't some kind of arrangement where climate and temperature offset each other? And based on the modern data set, both a direct and inverse relationship exists between temperature and tree ring width? So if tree ring width increases, temperature could be either higher or lower? BTW, this is how science works. One false prediction and divergence invalidates the entire theory. It has to be consistent all the time. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On February 25 2010 11:50 TanGeng wrote: One by one? This one is easy. NO. You are looking for a single principle component in the multivariate analysis not the combination of two or three or four or five. If we are looking at a combination of rainfall, moisture, sun, carbon dioxide and temperature then there is no basis for saying that the past was any cooler than the present. It's a combination of all those factors right? If the present decline was some change in climate (i.e. all the other factors) what rules out that previous increases and declines weren't some kind of arrangement where climate and temperature offset each other? Tree rings correlate well with the temperature record prior to sixty years ago as well as other temperature proxies such as ice cores, boreholes, and underwater sediments. On February 25 2010 11:50 TanGeng wrote: And based on the modern data set, both a direct and inverse relationship exists between temperature and tree ring width? So if tree ring width increases, temperature could be either higher or lower? Scientists believe that something changed about sixty years ago in one particular tree ring set because the correlation which had been holding for a long time ceased to hold in that particular tree ring set. On February 25 2010 11:50 TanGeng wrote: BTW, this is how science works. One false prediction and divergence invalidates the entire theory. It has to be consistent all the time. The theory is, "tree rings are a good temperature proxy before 1960." It is similar to a theory like, "the tree outside my house grows with time," both of which are true up until the point something fucks them up like us cutting down said tree. False predictions result in a revision of the theory, which in this case is the caveat. | ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On February 25 2010 12:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: Tree rings correlate well with the temperature record prior to sixty years ago as well as other temperature proxies such as ice cores, boreholes, and underwater sediments. Scientists believe that something changed about sixty years ago in one particular tree ring set because the correlation which had been holding for a long time ceased to hold in that particular tree ring set. The theory is, "tree rings are a good temperature proxy before 1960." It is similar to a theory like, "the tree outside my house grows with time," both of which are true up until the point something fucks them up like us cutting down said tree. False predictions result in a revision of the theory, which in this case is the caveat. The argument might be that any correlation before it diverged was coincidental. However, I think his argument is that due to the fact that there's such a huge divergence now, the integrity of any data or conclusions based on such data is compromised. And he's right. Those trees weren't cut down, the bristlecone pine trees used in the PC formulas which were given huge weight were known to be problem sets. You're going to have a hard time arguing against logic in this debate. Your last argument was extremely poor. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g11687 Liquid`RaSZi1545 shahzam507 Day[9].tv311 C9.Mang0229 B2W.Neo202 XaKoH  155Livibee130 Mew2King75 NeuroSwarm65 ViBE43 JuggernautJason36 SteadfastSC23 |
|
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
