Severe weather alert!!!!

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Aug 12, 2018.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Claiming you know what climate is going to do and how we should change our lives to change the climate is indeed fraud
     
    squidward likes this.
  2. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He admits he doesn't have the long term data, and has no idea what the long term trend is, but is convinced that a short term movement describes a trend
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  3. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just be clear...I use the laws of physics to show that the trend of the global mean surface temperature starting from 1960 will continue to rise under the assumptions that 1) human behavior continues down the RCP8.5 pathway 2) there are no large VEI 7+ volcanic eruptions and very few VEI 6 eruptions and 3) there are no cataclysmic events.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arrhenius figured out what the climate would do in 1896. He underestimated both the timing and magnitude of the warming.

    Callendar figured out what the climate would do in 1938. He underestimated both the timing and magnitude of the warming.

    Hansen figured out what the climate would do in the 1980's. His prediction of the 2016 and 2017 year end global mean surface temperature anomalies was very close even despite the Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and assuming human behaviors in terms of emissions would be business-as-usual (it turns out that we pumped about 20% less positive radiative forcing agents into the atmosphere due to curtailment policies that were enacted after he made the prediction).

    By the way, fraud is a criminal offense. Why aren't people going to jail by the thousands?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your opinion what is the difference between "pretending you know what will happen" and "making a prediction"?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you get thousands of people making thousands of predictions you can find a few that turned out right. Means nothing.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Tell me this whacked out conspiracy theory about how the rising CO2 is "fake"

    Ought to be entertaining- last denialist tried to tell me the measurements were Wong because CO 2 is heavier than air
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I was going to debate this but it really makes no sense
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Congratulations. You just discovered science. There are many hypothesis/predictions proposed in the pursuit of knowledge. It's those hypothesis/predictions that stand up to observations that are noticed. That's how theories evolve and are refined so as to make even better explanation and predictions in the future. Imagine what our world would look like if everyone was frozen with the fear of being wrong and never even tried to explain the world we live in. And remember, some of our most revolutionary insights into the physical world came from scientists who's hypothesis end up being dead wrong. It's hard to learn if you're not willing to try. Just don't expect to lay the golden egg on the first attempt.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never said C02 isn't rising so your post is pointless
     
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice try but sawed off shotgun hits the bulls eye withone or two pellets out of a hundred. That doesn't make it an accurate weapon.
     
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can your experiment be repeated such that the exact same pellets hit the bulls eye everytime?
     
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think about what you just said. Those pellets are history just as the scattergun predictions are history. Fire a thousand BBs and one or two will hit the target. Make a thousand predictions one or two will be right. The predictions are no more accurate than the shotgun.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well explain the term "fake CO2 pollution
     
  15. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lots of folks predict.
    Some folks, who should know better, predict using data that has no ability to prove what they claim
     
  16. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That made me giggle
     
  17. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CO2 is core component of your body's buffering system and pH management
     
  18. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which law of physics did you use?
     
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what I thought. This is not what science does. The same rules or model used to make a prediction must be repeatable no matter when it is done, who is performing it, or how many times it is done. Given the same inputs it must always produce the same result. And if one person develops a model that has success repeatedly with different inputs then confidence increases that the model will also have success with inputs that haven't yet been tried.

    You're gun analog doesn't work because its results aren't repeatable.
     
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of them. This includes but is not limited to:

    F=ma
    PV=nRT
    Conservation of Momentum
    Conservation of Mass
    Laws of Thermodynamics
    Quantum Electrodynamics Theory (to explain the molecular vibrations of GHGs in the presence of photons)
    Fluid Dynamics (continuity of mass, geostrophic momentum, hydrostatic equation, thermal state equation, etc.)

    and many more. AGW is built from the consilience of the multiple lines of evidence spanning all disciplines of science.
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So would you say quantum electrodynamics is not sufficient to explain why CO2 gets it's molecular vibrational modes (namely bending stretching) activated by photons with wave numbers 667, 1388, and 2349 even though 150 years of laboratory experiments have confirmed this countless times? Is this what you mean by "pretending"?
     
  22. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody is disputing the properties of the carbon oxygen double bonds in CO2.
    Are you trying to create arguments to argue?
     
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I kind of like this gun analogy actually so let's roll with it some more.

    What scientists did was build a super accurate sniper rifle that has all of the bells and whistles for compensating for wind, distance to target, rifling of the barrel, techniques for manufacturing the ammunition and many other elements that improve the systems performance. This gives them them ability to not only hit the same target repeatedly, but they can hit different targets repeatedly as well. There may have been a learning process along the way that led to failed attempts at building an accurate gun, with each failure the next gun got more accurate. A lot of was learned along the way and the gun evolved as it got better with time. It's still not perfect, but for the most part it just works.

    Deniers built a sawed off shotgun on their one and only attempt and stuck with it. There was no learning process. There was no refinement. It was all done with the mindset that once complete nothing should ever change because that'll just make you look like a...gasp...flip-flopper. As a result they got a gun that can't even hit the same target with consistency nevermind another target that might be further away or has a different wind profile to deal with or whatever. But, by God, they can hold their heads high because "they stuck to their guns" so to speak.
     
  24. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, impressive.
    You should have the equation that governs AGW handy.
    Oh, that's right, you can't even solve the three bodied equation of helium. But that doesn't stop you from thinking you can predict the outcome of a highly complex multivariable system by tweaking one component present in the 300 ppm range.
     
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, QED predicts molecular vibration and quantifies the amount of energy molecules absorb depending on the frequency of photon that hits them. The amount of energy predicted on a molecular basis is in pretty good agreement with the energy that is bouncing around in the lower troposphere as a result of these molecular vibration impeding IR photon progress to the stratosphere. Which, by the way, is THE smoking gun signal for GHG warming. That is the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere cools. A combination of QED, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, among others all converge to make that prediction. So I want to know...are those that use these disciplines and tools of science "pretending to know what happens" or are they "making a prediction"? And is it all a big fraud?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018

Share This Page