Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

This assertion does not even make LOGICAL sense.

Take carbon dating of organic material. Just by knowing the half-life of carbon-14 and measuring it's ratio to the carbon-12 in the sample the age can be known. I don't have to know anything else about the time the sample died or directly measure anything about the time it died. I just have to do the math.

 

and with carbon dating they can get you within maybe 100 years if that but they sure in the hell can pin point the exact date down to the specific year there is what is called a margin of error

we only been able to accurately measure temps down to the tenth of a degree for about 100 years all temps they give us over 100 years ago is just an estimation a guess with a margin of error and if that margin of error is over one degree then the cant say definitively that it is hotter now then it was 200 years ago now can they?

 

I'm so globally warmed I think Al Gore was robbed in 2001. The guy invented the internet and single handedly saved the whales then Bush stole his title from him.

 

I have no idea what any of that has to do with your original statement not making logical sense. I make no attestation to the accuracy range of carbon dating only point out that it is possible to calculate things with math thereby bypassing the need for direct observation as you allude.

If you are trying to say that there is an issue with the manner with which they mathematically estimate past temperatures you will need to 1) cite what that method is and 2) point out the specific errors in that work.

It would also help move the conversation along if you provided an example of 'them' saying anything.

 

Because most alarmists don't bother to study the range of scientific opinion and analysis on the subject. I have done so. It is clear by your own admission that you have not. It is very clear just who is in a bubble.

 

You have no idea what 'Poisoning the Well' means, do you?

Let me help you out:

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
​

By painting the opposite side of the argument in your mind as "alarmists", it makes it impossible for you to consider rationally anything they may have to say (like you claim is important to you).

BTW, we are still just talking about the hypothetical 'sides' in your brain here. There is still only one side to this discussion and that is the scientific side. You are tilting at windmills.

 

I am a retired engineer with a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering - Thermal Systems. I'm very capable of rationally determining which side is pissing on my leg and claiming it's raining outside. How did I do that - by carefully considering both sides of the issue. The side that I am on considers the real world data and not the upper limits of general circulation climate models. Again it is clear which side is hypothetical.

Your definition of my side (derisively described as denialists) are those who poison the well ?? Again it is clear whose mind is closed and who is poisoning the well.

 

For someone with a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering you sure don't read very well. There is no definition I have offered of 'your side' ... as I have written multiple times, there is only one side here.

BTW: Just for clarification I directly and specifically accused YOU of poisoning the well (along with countless other logical fallacies).

 

Shrill much ?? And I have provided a detailed description of the position that I advocate based on my technical abilities and reading of the science (not computer model simulations) involved.

 

The extreme effects of AGW on weather patterns can be seen at the NASA AGW Effects page. I recommend it.

 

You have done no such thing. You have made lots of assertions though (and pimped a book). BTW: we can now add 'argument from authority' to your repertoire of fallacies.

 

Funny stuff that ^^ Nothing but personal attacks and insults. Typical tactics that alarmists resort to when pressed to answer questions (and to avoid reading anything which refutes their contentions). I'd recommend reading RP Jr's book "The Climate Fix" as well.

 

Once again the alarmists demonstrate that they don't know the difference between climate variation and global warming. Actual data is used by RP Jr. to show that the NASA claims are false. And the alarmist "end of the world" predictions are based on the upper limits of the computer model simulations.

BTW, what does NASA say about the effect of the Clean Power Plan on the global average temperature 100 years from now ??

 

Actual data from many other scientists dispute your claim. Where is the consensus again on the exact negative effects of the Clean Power plan? Did you misplace it? LOL

 

No they don't. There is no actual empirical data to support the AGW case. It's strictly based on known-inaccurate models.

 

What is this? .. a book club?

Here are some recommendations for you then as well:

Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) by Bo Bennett, PhD

I'm Right - You're Wrong: How to Think Clearer, Argue Better and Stop Lying to Yourself by Sia Mohajer
​

BTW: Pointing out logical fallacies and problems with your (for want of a better word) 'argument', is NOT a personal attack.

 

Scaremongering. No actual empirical demonstration of extreme effects of CO2 on weather patterns.

 

I urge you to go and read the scientific references. They are there

 

There you go again. More funny stuff ^^

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to the IPCC.

 

Read the science son

 

Where is this data and why hasn't the IPCC agreed that AGW is responisible for extreme weather ??

Take your pick (if you were truly interested in the subject I wouldn't have to do your homework for you). But at this point all you have is diversion from the question - where is any estimate of the Clean Power Plan's effect on the global average temperature in 100 years (or for any time frame). :

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Negative+economic+effects+of+the+Clean+power+act

Now where is any estimate of the Clean Power Plan's effect on the global average temperature in 100 years (or for any time frame).

- - - Updated - - -

Read the IPCC AR5 which includes all the pertinent science. The NASA effects page is a joke.

 

Where is the consensus that the Clean Power Plan will have a negative effect. Why do you keep evading the question?

- - - Updated - - -

Read the NASA page and you might learn something

 

Can't help you if you won't do the homework. I've provided the links. But it's cute that you use this as a way to avoid the real question - how much will the Obama Clean Power Plan reduce the rate of global average temperature increase 100 years from now.

I read it - learned nothing. What are the three most important points on that page ??

 

Since the long term prediction is that extreme weather events will increase with global warming it is worthwhile to check the record. This record mixes weather induced events with cost. The cost is essentially irrelevant here but the frequency of weather events is relevant so one should separate them out. They use earthquakes as a baseline because these are not considered influenced much by AGW. The timeline is 1980 to 2010.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...on-record-for-natural-disasters/#.UyuLJ17c3wM

 

What is the source of this data and why does the timeline only include 1980 to 2010 ?? And once again why does the IPCC not find any correlation between global warming ??