Heat wave strikes Northeast

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fallacy of incredulity. You can't believe everyone else isn't as clueless as yourself.

    Meanwhile, mainstream climate science has been correct with its predictions for over 40 years running now. So, it's clear that you're wrong, and they do have a very good idea of what's going on.
     
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It must amount to a hill of beans because it's an observable effect that matches prediction within a reasonable margin of error. The warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere cools is the smoking gun observation. Only the combined effects molecule vibration through the depth of the atmosphere makes that prediction. Changes in solar radiation, albedo, volcanism, orbital cycles, etc. all make different predictions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So an individuals carbon footprint is of no interest to you?
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which predictions would that be exactly? Please link me to the predictions made by your mainstream climate scientist forty years ago that came true forty years later.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the 1970s, they predicted global warming, even before the world started warming. They were right.

    In contrast, your side can't even get the direction of the change correct. Your side has been predicting cooling pretty much non-stop.
     
    iamanonman likes this.
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arrhenius 1896. He didn't specifically link human emissions to the warming he predicted until the early 1900's, but he still gets credit for being the first to predict AGW decades before it started. One problem with his prediction was that he totally failed on the timing. He thought it would take centuries to occur. Obviously he underestimated the extent of the industrial revolution.

    Callendar 1938. Right from the start he linked human emissions of CO2 to his prediction that the Earth would warm. His prediction of 2C increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2 is believed to be too low. There's still a long way to go before this one can be confirmed or refuted. And if we never reach 600 ppm of CO2 then his prediction may never be fully tested though we should have a pretty high confidence either way by 2050 or 2075.

    Note these are 80 to 120 year old predictions. The predictions and evidence really started piling on in the 70's and especially the 80's.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My "side" as you put it predicts nothing. We understand that climate is unpredictible. What we do say is it has been warming since the last ice age ended and will continue to do so until we head into the next ice age but even that's just an educated guess.
     
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I asked for was all these predictions made by the concensus scientist forty years ago that came true forty years later and that's the best you can do? Kind of made my point for me. Dig hard though and I'm sure you can dredge up some predictions that came true because the true believers have predicted anything and everything, somebody somewhere sometime must have got it right.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hansen's 1988 prediction was pretty close. In the paper he describes 3 scenarios A, B, and C. Human behavior since 1988 put us between the B and C scenarios because our emissions weren't business-as-usual nor did they cease in 2000. And as you can see the observation was indeed between B and C. However, to be fair Hansen didn't quite get things right. The problem is that his model did not factor in any volcanic eruptions. And as you can see Pinatubo cause about 0.4C of cooling in the early 1990's. That means Hansen's scenario B which did not factor in the cooling effect of Pinatubo and which assumed X amount of emissions when the actual emissions were about 0.8*X. What this means is that if Hansen had used inputs that were closer to reality his model would have actually underestimated the warming. Regardless this is still a pretty good prediction; certainly far better than the predictions of Soon, Baliunas, Easterbrook, etc. who have been eternally predicting cooling.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've given you 3 predictions. One from 30 years ago, one from 80 years ago, and one from 120 years ago. And in each case their predictions were close with the largest source of error being the inputs such as human behavior (our actual emissions) and volcanic activity (which can't be predicted deterministically). And when you rerun their models using inputs based on reality their predictions actually underestimate the warming.

    Now it's your turn. Post a prediction that ignores the anthroprogenic components and let's compare then to ones I posted.
     
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Soon, Baliunas, Easterbrook, Curry, Christy, Spencer?

    Then how was it possible that the following predictions have been confirmed?

    - The global mean surface temperature will increase.
    - The warming will be more pronounced during the night vs day.
    - The warming will be more pronounced during the winter vs summer.
    - The warming will be more pronounced in the NH vs SH.
    - The warming will be more pronounced over land vs ocean.
    - The warming will be more pronounced in the higher latitudes.
    - The troposphere will warm while the stratosphere cools.
    - The water vapor mixing ratio will increase.
    - The number of record highs will outnumber the record lows.
    - The ocean will warm.
    - Arctic sea ice extents will decline.

    The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Temperatures continued to rise gradually until about 6,000 years ago when they peaked. At that point temperatures began falling gradually until they bottomed out during the Little Ice Age around 1700. At that point temperatures began rising gradually until about 1950 at which point the rocket shot up began. So no...it has not been warming since the last ice age ended. In fact, most of the last 10,000 years has seen the Earth cool.

    This is a prediction. What are you basing it off of?
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said earlier predicting the future is your venue. People like me shrug our shoulders and say Earth's climate is gonna do what Earth's climare is gonna do, always has always will. Hang on we are just along for the ride, adapt or perish.
     
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're really grasping at straws by using the little ice age as evidence that earth stopped warming since the last glacial period and by saying what I clearly labeled and educated guess is a prediction.
     
  14. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great God, it's hot. Just like it was last year as the dog days approached, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, and the decade before, and the decade before, and the century before, and the century before.

    It's a crisis I tell you.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm just saying that if our period of consideration starts around 10,000 years ago then about 60% of that time the Earth was cooling. And if we consider the period from 6,000 years ago then about 90% of that time the Earth was cooling. So if the prediction is "Earth's climate is gonna do what Earth's climare is gonna do" then wouldn't it better to predict cooling rather than warming?

    Also, educated guesses are still predictions. They're just predictions with lower confidence levels. The qualifier "educated" is used to imply that there was information considered that makes the "guess" better than random.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    tecoyah likes this.
  16. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you clarify what your point was here?
     
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That kind of attitude will definitely stifle scientific progress. Imagine what the world would look like today if all of our most revered scientists including but not limited to Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, etc. said "meh...who cares" instead of "hmm...that's interesting". I doubt we'd be having this conservation if everyone shared your apathy for scientific pursuit. Of course, we probably wouldn't have the technological means to influence the climate either so I guess in that regard the whole conversation would moot anyway.
     
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said I'll leave predictions to the cult, I'll shrug my shoulders and say Earth's gonna do what Earth's in s gonna do.
     
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm all for scientist trying to gain knowledge in all fields including climate and when they understand everything that causes every climate change that ever happened and ever will happen it will be of great interest. You me and our decendants for ten thousand years are not likely to see that day though.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that even mean?
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So perfect and infallible knowledge and understanding is what is required to pique your interest? Do you also shun biology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, physics, etc.? None of those disciplines have reached your bar of perfection. In fact, I don't know of any scientific discipline that claims to live up to that standard. Yet, they're all still useful. They're so useful, in fact, that you owe a huge percentage of your well being to this non-perfect pursuit of knowledge. I have a feeling that you're a lot more tolerant of the imperfection than you are letting on.
     
  22. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he clearly has no knowledge of how the scientific process works...nor will he ever attempt to learn so why bother debating someone who is incapable of learning or having any motivation to do so...
     
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm interested in all of the above which has nothing to do with a failed hypothesis that has a cult like following.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  24. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another fine example of the cult in action. He's not a believer so throw this infidel to the Lions.
     
  25. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It means you make predictions and change them as reality changes while I just live in reality and adapt to it as it changes.
     

Share This Page