The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Poor Debater, May 27, 2013.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you have a similar chart over the same amount of time, that covers sea ice thickness, not just size? Because I bet that during the time that it appeared "stable", you also had a gigantic reduction in the thickness of that ice cap.
     
  2. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, not having a shred of evidence to bolster your case, you respond with baseless speculation.

    Typical climate denier crap.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all. Actually, I am a strong believer in Climate Change, and I actually reject anybody who tries to claim it is not happening at all. I simply reject your reason for it.

    And it is not "baseless speculation", it is of critical importance. Say if 2kya the average depth was 2 miles thick, then 1kya it was 1 mile thick, then 200 years ago it was 400 meters thick, then the size is not anywhere near as important as the loss of thickness. But this is something you apparently reject, because it does not matter in your mindset. Yet to somebody looking at things logically instead of emotionally it is unimportant I guess.

    You are so obsessed about the area, you are completely missing the volume.
     
  4. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I reject it because you're just making stuff up without any evidence to support it, just because you don't like to lose an argument. In fact, you admit that you have no evidence to support it. Further, there is plenty of evidence that this is just plain wrong. 10 million square km of ice 2 miles (3.2 km) thick is 32 cubic km of ice. Melting half of that (16 cubic km) requires 5.34e24 Joules, and doing that in 1000 years requires 1.69e14 Watts. Since the Arctic Ocean is 1.41e7 square km, that would mean an input of a massive 12 Watts per square meter continuously over 2000 years. During a period when we know from other sources that the Earth was actually cooling.

    Sorry, shroom, that's just plain nutty.

    Please point out any lack of logic in the first paragraph above. The emotional one here is you, who is apparently so committed to the idea that Mushroom is never wrong, you'd prefer to just make nonsense up off of the top of your head, than admit that your own knowledge is in any way limited.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, that is 32 km3 of ice? Really? Because my math comes up with 320,000,000 km3 of ice myself. There must be some kind of math where to convert from square to cube you divide instead of multiply.

    And really, the Earth has been cooling for the last 2,000 years? I guess that explains why the Sahara and Gobi deserts have grown, the Middle East has become a desert, and Lake Manly has completely vanished in that time period (replaced with one of the driest deserts on the planet). And why the ice caps and glaciers have retreated drastically. All of that, because the planet was cooling.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My typo, left out the word "million". Your math error, by a factor of 10, since 3.2 km x 10 million km is 32 million km, not 320 million km. The rest of my math is right, including the conclusion: 12 Watts per square meter, for 2000 years.

    Most people know the difference between temperature and rainfall. I hope someday you'll learn that too.

    Only since about 1850. After the start of industrial coal burning.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Do you realize how ridiculous you look when you obviously show that you AREN'T looking at the noise in the system, but just cherry picked time frames wide enough that you are forced to use different means of measures? Without mentioning both the uncertainty in those measures, or the ability of those proxies to tell you that yes, over short periods of time, the NATURAL variation can be even larger than the one most fascinating to those poorly prognosticating temperatures today?
     
  8. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What's with the vitriol? I haven't seen a single poster in this thread yet deny climate, deny that climate doesn't change, or do anything typical. Some of the rebuttals to the belief based system you appear to favor have been quite educational. And for the record, I believe whole heartedly in climate change, the residual glacial boulders in Central Park prove it. And don't get me started on Roman archeological sites now underwater from all the sea level rise, the ferns which turned our world into its current icebox configuration, or whatever we would do without Canadian women if the glaciers hadn't been melted by the non-rise in CO2 15,000 years ago. Pamela Lee would never have been born!
     
  9. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cherry picking means using less than the total data available. If you have more data available than Kinnard et. al., you should cite it. Which you won't, because you don't. In other words, it would be easy to back up your charge of cherry picking, if you had actual data.

    Since you don't have any actual data, you're simply making stuff up and hoping nobody will notice. Standard denier tactics, and dishonest to boot.

    Can't read, and can't see either, it appears. Take a look at that Kinnard et. al. graph. See those pink areas? That's the uncertainty band. Nice try, but you lose again.

    Once again, you're just making stuff up and have no evidence to support it.
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I haven't seen a single post from you indicating that you have the vaguest idea about what causes climate change, either.
     
  11. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I know what it means. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to keep doing it.

    My charge is that cherry picked data might not represent the variability in the system, or worse yet, that very means of data collection might not even allow the measurement of the total variability because guess what...we didn't have thermometers back then! Which interprets as, you don't even KNOW if current events are just a normal, once in a century event, once in a millennia, era, epoch, age or whatever. And because you DON'T know the variability, nobody is in a position to even know what is abnormal in the system.

    If you don't understand my point, you are allowed to say, "I don't get it". Here, let me help a little more. Once upon a time, according to the Siple ice core, CO2 in the northern hemisphere was lower than it was today, say, like in 1750. It increased from around 278 to maybe 300 ppm between 1750 and 1825 or so. Temperature decreased across the same timeframe from a baseline measure of -0.2C to -0.8C. Yes, it got colder as CO2 increased.

    If I was cherry picking across that timespan, using models to do silly things, I could confidently predict the end of the world through freezing sometime in 1905 or so because the evidence I had in front of me all would say that increasing CO2 was driving temperature down. Sort of like people are doing today, expect in the opposite direction. But what if I use the information as nothing more than some measure of the natural variability in the system, fluctuations of 25ppm +/- and temperature changes of +/- 0.6C. Considering that the CO2 ppm has gone from 340->400ppm since around 1980 or so

    co2_data_mlo.png

    and temperature has fluctuated within a 0.4C band during the same amount of time:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

    what in the WORLD would ever lead you to believe that current temperature fluctuations are necessarily any different across the past 30 years than they have been in the past, where it can be demonstrated that not only does the temperature fluctuate MORE at times, but it does it inversely correlated with CO2 in the atmosphere, unlike todays current fad of using only positive correlation?

    Does that make it easier for you? Or do I need more breadcrumbs?
     
  12. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Does it make you sleep better at night, knowing the CAUSE of a thing? I don't know diddly on how to calculate orbital ballistics but that doesn't mean I need to worry about satellites falling out of the sky and killing me in my sleep, they, like the planet, are doing what they do according to a set of rules which I may not understand completely, but am happy to not interfere with because....it's worked for billions of years, why mess with success?

    The climate has changed before, it will again, why does the natural world doing wild and crazy things BOTHER people so much? Just wait until Yellowstone The Volcano goes off, the true believer set are going to have a field day with that one, OMG!! Hot spots in the earth's crust! Lions and tigers and bears, people must have caused it to happen because goodness knows the world only revolves around us!

    Certainly for all the vitriol you point at everyone who doesn't instantly buy into your worldview, I haven't seen a single plan on your part detailing how the problem can be solved. As an engineer, I have always lived by the axiom that it isn't a problem, until there is a solution. You have any solution for stopping humans from emitting CO2 do you? When the alternative is to just die so they stop breathing, I'm betting you have a hard sell on your hands to the human "problem". And in any case, I haven't seen you (or many others either, really) who have a solution. Lots of hand wringing and fear and lions and tigers and bears, but no solutions. Because really, at the end of the day, you aren't going to convince people to just all die so that they stop emitting CO2 directly, and indirectly through their desire to have a decent standard of living by using energy of some sort to do work.
     
  13. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That probably started early on when they started sacrificing virgins to make the sun come back for growing season.
     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you claim that there is existing data I haven't considered, yet somehow, even after repeated questioning, you cannot cite that data. Not one citation to actual, honest-to-god, peer reviewed data from you.

    An objective person would suspect that the reason you're not citing any data is because there really isn't any such data, and you're just lying through your teeth. Of course, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong and cite some data. It's now three posts from you since your cherry-picking charge, and still no citation.

    But since there actually is no cherry picking going on, and you have not cited any data to show otherwise, it's completely fair to conclude that the data I have presented represents the variability of the system perfectly well. Which means you're completely wrong, and have been from the start.

    So now you're claiming that the laws of science change over time? Or do you simply not yet know that proxy data is based on science? Or do you prefer to deny science because it leads to political conclusions you disagree with?

    And now the answer is clear: you don't know a damn thing about science. Somehow, you seem to believe that ice melts all by itself, just because of something vague and undefined that you call "natural variation". Never mind the citation, Peak, you've got your religious, non-evidence-based belief in the miracle of "natural variation" to magically wave away all evidence, no matter now compelling.

    Brilliant.

    Do you guys have to go to school to learn how to prevaricate like that with a straight face? Because according to real Siple Ice Core data, CO2 didn't reach 300 ppmv until 1915.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013

    Wrong. Temperature anomaly increased from -.44° to -.19° between 1750 and 1915. See Andersen et. al. 2013.

    In the first place, the logical flaw you describe is mindless extrapolation, not cherry picking. In the second place, extrapolation is fine as long as it's based in reality and not mindless. And in the third place, since you don't actually stay up to date with the science, it's no wonder all of your ideas are flawed.

    In the first place, since the typical variability swing is 0.4°, it should be abundantly clear, even to you, that the 0.9° change we have observed isn't natural variation. In the second place, temperature changes don't happen by magic: temperature must be forced to change. In the third place, we have a pretty good handle on what forces those changes. And in the fifth place, CO2 has a major effect. It's not the only player, but it's the big hitter.

    If you can demonstrate such a negative correlation after accounting for other forcings (such as the steadily increasing solar activity over the phanerozoic) a Nobel Prize awaits you. Please, demonstrate away. We're all waiting.

    While we're waiting, you might want to take a look at Royer et. al. 2007, which concluded that you're full of crap.

    What you need is actual evidence that anything you say is even remotely true. So far, even your own sources deny you.
     
  15. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You bet it does. That's what science is all about. The fact that you don't give a damn about causes does not imply that those of us who do are wrong about causes.

    And yet somehow, the laws of radiation transfer, which have also worked for billions of years without fail, somehow in your mind must now be suspended in the name of "natural variability", or whatever crackpot scheme-of-the-moment pops up on WUWT. Why is that, Peak?

    What the natural world does to climate is fine with me. But the current climate change isn't natural. It's us. It's accelerating. It's permanent. And it's going to be very, very expensive. And that bothers me a great deal.

    Simple. We need to tax fossil carbon out of the marketplace.

    And that's your whole problem, right there. You refuse to see that a problem exists, because your worldview prohibits the problem from existing in the first place.

    Utter nonsense and claptrap. Unless the CO2 you exhale comes from eating coal, then your exhalations are not part of the problem, nor are mine, nor are any plant or animal byproduct. It's fossil carbon, and only fossil carbon, that is the problem.

    If you've never read anything about a carbon tax, then clearly you are a low-information voter. But we knew that already.
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ironically, this skates around something I even mentioned earlier, and was totally missed.

    More then any other really measurable factor, Vulcanism has more of an impact on global weather then anything else. It is the co-reason that the dinosaurs went extinct, and is responsible for almost wiping out the human race around 77 kya. And the Yellowstone Supervolcano is due for an eruption at any time now (geologically speaking). On average, there is a major one every 600,000 years, and a minor one every 125,000 years. And the last major one was 640,000 years ago and the last minor one was 175,000 years ago.

    And the last major eruption left ash deposits from California to Alabama. There were 1 foot deep fossilized deposits left in Nebraska, over 1,000 miles away.

    We really are in a major downtime when it comes to volcanism. The last major volcanic event was 77,000 years ago, and the biggest in recorded and barely recorded history were Krakatau in 1883 and Santorini in around 1600 BCE. SO we are overdue for a major volcanic event as well, and the major weather changes that happens when one of those happens as well.
     
  17. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How do I know what you have considered? And if you require someone to lead you around by the nose with "peer reviewed data", might I suggest thinking for yourself is a fundamental right, and you should try it sometime?

    Are you saying that temperature data provided by Spencer isn't really data, or are you just blind? As far as citations, oh gee, how difficult can that be? You want one more appropriate than your confusion about data? No problem. How about one from Byrnes?

    "In multivariate phenomena many variables do not exert independent influence. Observations made of multivariate phenomena are usually correct but present information about the phenomena from different perspectives, that is, they each test different hypotheses, make different assumptions, and hold different
    variables or boundary values constant. As with the three blind men describing an elephant, each is telling the truth but each provides a completely different view. It is common to construct models that are internally consistent within the boundaries of a defined problem but which are not required to be externally consistent, where the model results may not explain but are not in conflict with observations outside the model. Fully accurate models must be able to explain, or at minimum not conflict with, ALL data or there must be a valid reason for rejecting or ignoring data that are inconsistent with the model."

    Science? My published article count in Natural Resources Research stands at 5, how is yours? If I had a dime for everyone who pretended that "science" was only on their side I would be rich swimming in the coin. Please. Science as an authority figure is brought up when people are required to round up an "official" rationalization to support a point they aren't capable of fighting on their own. Try thinking for yourself already, it will hold you in better stead in the long run than taking some academics word for everything.

    I was trying to read the interpolation across this graphic:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/img_LG28.htm

    Your data is better. So I should amend my prior statement to say that as CO2 was increasing and temperature was falling...oops....I already did because....my point is still valid because CO2 was still trending upwards. Gee....funny how that works out even if I can't guess across the interpolation. And the graphic I used, amazingly seems to show both warming and cooling with increasing CO2. Interesting....maybe that is part of this natural variability that you don't appear to understand?

    Tell it to the Stiple ice core and decreasing temperatures between 1750 and 1825. Such a big hitter that as CO2 was increasing, temperature was dropping. By more than temperature has varied across the Spencer data. This isn't hard Poor.
     
  18. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Science is about understanding, it doesn't care about you sleeping at night any more than I do. And one of Lee Gerhard's entire points in the climate debate is that more science needs to be done, because there are pieces not enough is known about to make the projections which, as demonstrated previously, aren't doing so well.

    You don't know that. Why? Because...wait for it...you don't know what the natural variability in the system is. See how this works? You can't know one without the other, and the same people building those bad temperature predictions, are the same ones who HAVEN'T built the natural variability of the system into their thinking. How do I know this? BECAUSE THEIR MODELS CAN'T PREDICT TEMPERATURE YET.

    See how easy that was, once you learn to think for yourself? Try it, you'll like it, and you won't have to pretend that those of us who publish in peer reviewed science rags are anything special compared to a read well internet denizen.

    Hey, hide from any boogeyman you'd like, just don't drag me into your delusions. Particularly don't tell me that I have to reduce my CO2 emissions because boy do I like living!

    I have news for you, the planet knows no difference between fossil carbon and you breathing.

    There is no current solution to the human species suddenly deciding to collectively stop breathing.

    Incorrect. You are making CO2 distinctions without a difference, the planet does not care about your semantic game, and if you are incapable of calculating the amount of CO2 pumped into the air by humans breathing, I am sure there are some around here who can. In the meantime, for a thinking man's exercise (which means you probably will ignore it completely) try on Ruddiman:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146349

    and he will explain his theory on why humans and their irrigation started changing the climate 10,000 years ago, with nary a fossil fuel carbon in sight. Of course he the appropriate kind of scientist and all, but because you already know everything you WANT to know, you will probably ignore his theories, pedigree or not. :)

    So now you want to tax people for breathing, great.
     
  19. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    not to side track but there is a lot of discussion on the accuracy of ice core CO2 data. Seems it appears that the ice core data represents a long-term, low-frequency moving average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration; while leaf stomata yields a high frequency component. GEOCARB data also suggests that ice core CO2 data are too low. Whatever proxy you use it is evident that temperature has always led CO2 by anywhere from 200 to years to over a thousand depending on the location of the core samples
     
  20. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guess which paper's been peer-reviewed and which wasn't?
    And I've already shown and linked to a discrepancy in your paper.
    Let me do it again:

    I'll start off my showing the discrepancy between what CCC claims IEA states and what IEA actually states:
    [TABLE="width: 500"]
    [TR]
    [TD]2010[/TD]
    [TD]CCC[/TD]
    [TD]IEA[/TD]
    [TD]2020 IEA[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Biomass[/TD]
    [TD]9.9%[/TD]
    [TD]1.5%[/TD]
    [TD]2.7%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Wind[/TD]
    [TD]0.7%[/TD]
    [TD]1.6%[/TD]
    [TD]2.8%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Solar PV[/TD]
    [TD]0.1%[/TD]
    [TD]0.15%[/TD]
    [TD]1.3%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Hydro[/TD]
    [TD]2.3%[/TD]
    [TD]16%[/TD]
    [TD]16%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Geothermal[/TD]
    [TD]0.1%[/TD]
    [TD]0.32%[/TD]
    [TD]0.56%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Concentrat SP[/TD]
    [TD]0.0%[/TD]
    [TD]0.0%[/TD]
    [TD]0.37%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]13.1%[/TD]
    [TD]19.57%[/TD]
    [TD]26.73%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    IEA data from Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013

    Second and third columns compare what CCC alleges IEA states and what IEA actually states. So you can toss out the credibilty of Lonborg's testimony.
    Last column is Alternative energies necessary to meet the goal of limiting atmospheric temperature increase to 2C
    So how realistic are these 2C goals? Because the 2 primary energies are wind and solar and because that's what you're fixated on, I'll only address the feasibility of meeting these 2 goals.

    Care to point out any discrepancies in the paper I linked to or are you sticking with the ridicule comment?
     
  21. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could start by reading my posts. Let's begin with sea ice, Kinnard et. al. 2011 (which was cited both in the posted graph itself, and explicitly in this post). What have I missed? Where's that allegedly high-variability data that I allegedly ignored in my alleged cherry-pick? Post #4 from you, and still no citation. And you wonder why I think you're just making stuff up.

    So you have no data. Therefore your charge of cherry picking was false. Please have the decency to admit it.

    It's data, but it doesn't support your position that the current warming is nothing more than natural variability. So apparently the blind one is you.

    Nice quote. It comes from a personal letter and has never been peer reviewed, which means that nobody (except the single addressee) is able to check the context.

    I suspect that if you live long enough, Peak, you might run into an actual climatological journal someday. But I doubt that you'll actually read it.

    In all scholarly pulbications, seventeen, including a letter in Nature. I've never published in Natural Resources Research, but then I'm not a petroleum geologist, so my income doesn't depend on AGW being wrong.

    I take it from this effort at distraction that you have decided that eliminating the science of radiative transfer from your brain is a good example of "thinking for yourself". Personally I consider it a good example of self-delusion.

    No, your point is still invalid, because temperature was still trending upwards too. I've cited Andersen et. al. 2012 before (and may have gotten the year wrong: if so, mea culpa), but you have an amazing way of ignoring any data you don't like. Please let me know if there is anything in this graph that the editors of Natural Resources Research would find perplexing:

    [​IMG]

    Gee, funny how you're missing the key point that every single graphic I've posted so far shows the very same natural variation you're so obsessed with ... and every single graphic also shows, very clearly, that natural variation does not, and cannot, explain the current warming trend. CO2 can and does.

    Another false statement supported by zero evidence. You should be in the prevaricator's Hall of Shame.

    And yet another false statement supported by zero evidence. I certainly hope you don't try to get away with this kind of crap in your peer-reviewed work. Because if you do, it speaks very poorly for the editors of Natural Resources Research.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure more science needs to be done. But that in no way implies that the science which has already been done (and which you are mostly ignorant of) is wrong.

    Wow! This is truly amazing! You can tell me, without even looking, what I don't know. Meanwhile, I can tell, without even looking, what you haven't read. Because in fact, we do know, quite well, what the natural variability of the system is. If you do a Google Scholar search of "climate variability" you'll only get 23,000 hits, and that's just in the last four years. But hey, you're a denier, so go ahead and keep on pretending that climate scientists have never heard of variability and have never addressed it; I'm sure you'll sleep better with your comforting self-delusions safely in place. That doesn't make them true, however.

    In fact, we can explain nearly all of that natural variability already, and this has already been done numerous times in the literature. Of course, you're a denier so you don't read the literature, and you certainly won't read any scientific literature that upsets your comforting self-delusions. But just for the sake of completeness, you might try looking at Lean & Rind 2008, or Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

    Actually, you can. Of course that takes math, so deniers are immediately lost in the weeds.

    How odd that anyone could look at this graph and NOT see natural variability built into climate models:
    [​IMG]

    But then you're a denier, so self-delusion is your stock in trade. Ignore, ignore, ignore all those wiggly gray lines! I say there's no natural variability in the models, so there just can't be any! So there! And if that's not enough, just IGNORE some more! We deniers just luuuuuvs our ignorance!

    Then how do you explain the graph above? (Predicted answer: you're going to ignore it.)

    An allegedly well-read internet denizen who actually hasn't read even the basics of climate science. Sorry, Peak, but reading WUWT doesn't even come close to making you well read.

    By the way, this is post #5 with no citation of any data showing that I've cherry picked. And still no acknowledgement or apology from you, for making that false charge. Shame on you.

    And I have news for you: you're 100% wrong. The carbon you emit when you exhale came from the air in the first place, via the plants you eat. That means your exhalations are carbon-neutral: the only carbon going into the air is carbon that came out of the air. Net zero.

    The carbon your SUV emits hasn't been in the air for millions of years: net positive for the air. And that's the difference.

    On the contrary, I agree with that entirely. But when you actually get around to quantifying stuff (which is what scientists do, but deniers avoid) you will find that the pre-industrial changes humans made to the climate are teeny tiny compared to what we're doing now via CO2.


    Say, here's an idea: if you can't refute the position I actually hold, you might try lying about the position I actually hold and refute that instead. Of course, such despicable tactics would make you a liar.
     
  23. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why? It is obvious that to you there is a difference between CO2 and...CO2, that ridicule is the first line of defense immediately followed by a math error, a logic fault, or a typo because you are trying to quote others rather than THINKING FOR YOURSELF. :eyepopping:

    I don't need a parrot to do my internet searches for me, I am quite capable of finding properly footnoted articles and going through them myself.

    So, when you decide to put your thinking cap on, fine, maybe we can have a more whimsical conversation on the topic, but in the meantime, calm down already. You don't have a solution, you don't even understand the concept of uncertainty inside of complex systems, which means you certainly can't even talk about the resolution of the "data" you keep trumpeting about as though the same sample analyzed in two different labs will deliver the same answer (it often doesn't), you can't even be distracted from your parroting long enough to THINK about the topic, of what value is it to talk to you?

    Stay comfortable in your belief system cuddled up with the "science" you like the most if that makes you happy. Some people cannot be happy until they convince themselves they have it all figured out and live in a world of only certainty, far be it for me to try and demonstrate otherwise, and there is no law requiring those types of people to face reality, and I am certainly not paid to be a missionary to do it in my whimsical spare time.
     
  24. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kinnard et. al. is just another tree ring study. That is your problem with peer review. You think that just because it made it into a journal it has to be true. News flash most published studies are false. Kinnard, lol at the name, is a very good example. They study started with a correct premiss, to use seatmate isotope ratios in the arctic ocean to model ice melt. When they couldn't get the result they wanted from the correct isotope proxy they for some unknown reason decided to add some tree rings and walla hockey stick.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/05/kinnard-arctic-o18-series/

    Kinnard would have been a good study if they had stuck to solid arctic sediment proxies and not tried to stretch imagination by including tree rings and contaminated proxies. Arctic sediment in theory is actually a good proxy for ice melt but when they started to stretch imagination and included tree rings that ended up dominating the reconstruction it became a canard.
     
  25. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    and I have pointed out that the paper I quoted http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf page 14 ref 4uses IEA's World Energy Outlook and what you are quoting is Tracking Clean Energy which tracks past achievements and what they want to see in the future. World Energy Outlook 2013 does not come out to November and lists projections not wish lists. Is that too complicated for you to grasp ?

    oh for everyone I use a 1920 x 1080 monitor and if your post can't fit on a single page it belongs in a blog , not a forum so I ignore it
     

Share This Page