| Author | Message | ||
     Tod662 |
what arguments have i made that are not based of your statements? | ||
| Hootowl |
"Hoot the middle east was desertified in the last 5000 years i think." So...before the industrial revolution? Are you going to walk back the silly assertion that the exodus from the middle east is being caused by AGW, or should I just take it as read? It's not a new tactic, by the way, attributing anything and everything to AGW. Most of the folks have long abandoned the idea that we need to DO SOMETHING NOW about GW and take it for what it is: A bunch of people with incomplete models fudging data and telling everyone the sky is falling. This causes the AGW crowd no end of angst, so they start pinning everything on it, no matter how ridiculous, to keep AGW on the front page and present in daily conversation. | ||
| Reepicheep |
You keep calling me a Republican for one. I'm a fiscal conservative, thank you. And you were implying I am denying that consuming fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels, and I'm not. If you can get past making stupid and untrue oversimplifications about anyone that disagrees with you, you will be a lot less tedious at parties.  | ||
| Hootowl |
"Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation." So that means, unequivocally, that human-caused CO2 is the source of the warming? More likely means that the models are incomplete, since we know, from the temperature and CO2 level record, that CO2 levels and temperature don't correlate. | ||
| Aesquire |
"Hoot the middle east was desertified in the last 5000 years i think." This is something that Historians actually can give an answer to. A major change happened in historical times when Tamerlane swept the region. In classic times ( Greek, Roman ) when an invading army would occupy a land, the cities would hold out, under siege, depending on food stores, wells, and surprisingly often, food being smuggled into the cities by farmers out in the countryside. Often, the order would be given to "raze the country side" to kill the crops, and speed up the starve them out process. But swords are lousy scythes, soldiers tend to join the Army because farming is back breaking work, Olive Trees are very tough to kill, don't want to burn, and in general, "kill all the crops" is done in a very haphazard manner, and almost never completely. So later, when the war is over, the peasants return, rebuild, and life goes on. Tamerlane, taking on Persia, ( modern Iran & Iraq & ) took a different approach. He ordered the waterworks destroyed, the Quanats that fed water from the mountains thru tunnels into the flat lands, the canals, the irrigation system. ( world class at the time, rivaling Rome in scale ) Smash the locks, collapse the tunnels, and fill in wells, ( tossing a few bodies in first makes the well water undrinkable for a long time... in a big area ) and wreck the infrastructure. But most importantly, he ordered his army to kill all the peasants. Kill every farmer, his family, anyone not already under siege in the cities. No more farmers, no more smuggled food. Much easier to kill people than ruin crops. The region has never recovered. Also. Every time you plow, a bit of good soil gets blown away in the wind. Farm heavy for a few thousand years, you get rock and sand. But arguably the most important reason the middle east is "desertified" is the same reason the Sahara keeps growing. Sheep. If your religion allows you to eat meat, you can eat sheep. Sheep, unlike cattle, eat the grass right down to the ground, and their manure is the closest thing the ancient world had to a universal solvent. I've been 4H. Pig manure is nasty stuff, true. But we kept sheep in a brand new pole barn, and in one season, the fresh concrete floor looked like the Moon. The wood supports were eaten through. We kept that place as clean as possible.... Sheep crap eats rubber boots. And hoses. Remember the cartoon with Droopy as a sheep herder? It's a slight exaggeration.  https://vimeo.com/132731743 | ||
| Sifo |
I betcha that graph (if its real) would look different when you add the date from other years. Yes, it would look different. It also wouldn't be the time frame that I mentioned. Something that you simply dismissed out of hand. The lack of warming for the past almost 20 years is well documented. It's well known enough to have been named. The "missing heat". One of the leading theories on where the heat went was that it went to the deep ocean. I never quite understood how atmospheric warming goes from the atmosphere to the deep ocean without being noticed by our current satellite measuring. Details like that kind of matter. "Evidence to the contrary has been posted. You ignore this. Why? In reality current CO2 levels are historically low. When in our history did high CO2 levels cause the climate to spiral out of control as has been told to us is happening." I really have not seen any evidence to back up this statement, please repost. (yes im calling 1 million years what matters, cricky if you go back far enough the temperature was -454) So yeah please show me evidence that CO2 has been above 400 ppm in the last oh lets say 10x the complete history of our species) How have you discussed what you have not seen. Seriously, the resolution is poor, but CO2 was dropping all the way to present times. Feel free to believe what you want though. Please explain why higher levels of CO2 in the past has never resulted in a run away climate warming though.  "Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation." So that means, unequivocally, that human-caused CO2 is the source of the warming? More likely means that the models are incomplete, since we know, from the temperature and CO2 level record, that CO2 levels and temperature don't correlate. Almost certainly it means that climate models were designed with the idea that human caused CO2 was the primary cause of global warming. You can "prove" almost anything with a computer model. A computer model has no need to observe the rules of physics. Rather it only needs to observe the rules of the model. I say this as someone who has done computer modeling. But what do I know? BTW, we know for an absolute fact that the models were designed by folks who believe that CO2 is the cause of warming. | ||
| Hootowl |
Regarding the models. Do a google image search on 'climate model projections vs reality'. It's pretty obvious the models are wrong. | ||
| Sifo |
It's pretty obvious the models are wrong. But the conclusion never waivers.  | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, Reepicheep has made some very evenhanded posts on this subject that Todd is very dismissive of. It's a shame that Todd is unwilling to set aside what he already "knows" to learn something new. (Message edited by SIFO on December 01, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
Todd, this one is for you... http://tinyurl.com/jm2y5wk | ||
| Aesquire |
I was going to run through Tod's very nice post with all the links... Thank You Tod, for including them, and I was going to just list the logical argument fallacies... But why bother? No one in his right mind wants foul air and dirty water. No one here wants to die in a horrible climate wasteland. And I bet all of us would be thrilled with a replacement for fossil fuels, as long as we could still run our toys. Our bikes, our cars, our aircraft... Give me synthetic 100 octane gasoline substitute, lead free, made from Garbage, and I'm fully behind you wanting to push for that to be the way we do things. There are a Buttload of great reasons to get off fossil fuels. First.... As has been pointed out above, oil is a battery laid up by sunlight and life for a long freaking time.  Oil etc. is our capital. We used the forests to start the industrial revolution, turning England's trees into charcoal. ( technically, a bio-fuel and renewable.... except it wasn't renewable in a meaningful way, was it? ) When consumption exceed renewable replacement capacity, it's not really working. That's the #1 problem with oil. Also burning oil is nuts when it's so much more valuable as chemical feed stock to make My Little Pony Action figures and carbon fiber parts for our bikes. If we don't have a replacement for oil, we are doomed. 2nd. The pollution from fossil fuels is a serious problem. 3rd, and not insignificant, a number of the oil producing countries are run by jerks. Paying the jerks to stay in power so we can keep a steady flow of oil sucks. You could do a whole thread on that. ( and several doctoral thesis ) Renewables? Solar? Wind? In short, collecting diffuse energy from sun wind and tides, is an engineering problem, bound by Physics limits. You need to collect little bits of low density energy. Yes, there is a f-ton of power that falls on the planet. But only a little bit at one spot. Building enough square footage to make it worthwhile costs a lot. No, more. Don't forget the pollution to make the collectors and the space they take up. Super massive infrastructure projects would be needed to replace most of the oil with solar and wind. Best analysis by the Google folk say it's a net loss.... as currently done.... but even Star Trek tech level solar is not an ecologically sound replacement. Ted Kennedy famously refused to let them build windmills near his house. ( a great spot for a wind farm ) You don't want to live in the shade of the Solar Array either. Orbital Solar works out much better, but still is darned expensive to start up. I personally think the infrastructure required would also be a great side effect. Mine the Asteroids. Gotta be oil out there, somewhere, right?  When they mass produce solar shingles for the cost of quality asphalt ones, THEN you got something to help with our energy needs. Bio fuel. Burning 100 gallons of diesel to make 100 gallons of Corn booze, doubling it's pollution because you're burning it twice? Logic fail. ( good money for agribusiness though ) When algae or lawn trimmings can be used, go make money. Today? not so much. bio-fuels have to be grown with Far less energy input from man, to output as possible... and it's still basically solar power, thus physically Huge. This means that even though I am a Heretic, I support some government subsidy for renewable energy research. Even tax breaks for folk who want to install Solar on their own dime. The subject rates a discussion IMHO. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, Great Link! Thanks. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Also burning oil is nuts when it's so much more valuable as chemical feed stock to make My Little Pony Action figures and carbon fiber parts for our bikes" The guys who really know what they're doing use ethane. | ||
| Ducbsa |
The barriers to AGW hysteria for me are Faked data Computer models that don't work Lies about polar bears, walruses, etc. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/the- walrus-and-the-new-york-times.php The Watermelon effect: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." From http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/clim atistas-well-always-have-paris.php | ||
| Tod662 |
Here is a bit of a background on the author of on of the above links from duc Steven F. Hayward is a conservative writer and journalist covering issues including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy. He is a regular blogger at Power Line. Steven Hayward is associated with numerous conservative think tanks including thePacific Research Institute (PRI) where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, and the American Enterprise Institute where he was formerly aWeyerhaeuser Fellow. He is also listed as a Board Member and Treasurer of theDonors Capital Fund (DCF), a group that works with DonorsTrust to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to numerous groups questioning mainstream climate science. [2], [3] The American Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute are both heavily funded by oil billionaires Koch Industries, and Richard Mellon Scaife. Stance on Climate Change: “The planet is warming. Human beings are playing a substantial role in that warming. How large that warming is going to be and how we ought to respond to it is still an open question (Message edited by tod662 on December 02, 2015) | ||
| Tod662 |
Ok what I see here is 1. Because humans have denuded their environment and well, f$!#ed up in the past that means that drought conditions in the middle east can't be related to climate change 2. This graph from a reduucoulously! longe time frame somehow shows that becomes the temperature was only 25 degrees C. warmer (over millions of years) things are "cool". 3. If there is missing heat, the idea of deep ocean currents and deep subligation if inconceivable. ( have the warmest years on record not been since 2000???) 4. Reep is a fiscal conservative but not a repub 5. Burning fossil fuels adds co2 to the atmosphere. 6. Renewable energy is a good thing 7. I am supposed to respond to all statements but the large body of evidence I list isn't worth rebutting. 8. And sheep shit is bad | ||
| Ducbsa |
Tod, it's fine to point out Hayward's affiliation, but does it make what he says any less true? Nice Alinsky tactic, but how about if you address the issues, rather than some smokescreen about the bearer of the information? Have you refuted that the data has been faked? Have you demonstrated that a single computer model has been accurate? Have you shown that the Paris carbon spewers don't have wealth redistribution as their goal? | ||
| Aesquire |
Correct, Sheep shit is bad. All the rest? you rate about 50/50 on the reality scale. ( have the warmest years on record not been since 2000???) No. You've been lied to. For power & wealth. The thousands of other scientist who question the models that do not predict the past are not all paid for by the Liberal Koch Bros. | ||
| Tod662 |
Here is a little bit I found looking at Ducs other source. http://econopolitics.com/2012/04/02/john-hinderake r-is-no-scientist/ | ||
| Tod662 |
Wealth redistribution, please explain exactly how that works. Why is clean energy and the jobs that go with it a bad thing, but the money spent on and for fossil fuels great? And explain to me how the current temperature reading are wrong, (I've seen your crazy blog that says woods hole numbers have been changed- corrections if done don't equal falsification) | ||
| Tod662 |
You guys do realize that that pretty graph up there simplifies things so much that the time shown is greater then the history of complex life right? , ya wanna talk about a oversimplification! !! | ||
| Tod662 |
Here is a interesting article from adding "debunked" to sifos pretty little search for missing heat. https://eos.org/articles/tracking-the-missing-heat -from-the-global-warming-hiatus | ||
| Tod662 |
 any comments | ||
| Pwnzor |
I call bullshit on any temperature reading taken before thermometers were invented. It's all guesswork. The earth is only crowded in population centers, and the only place smog is a problem is in those exact places. The earth was here before us, and will be here after us, only God is eternal.  | ||
| Tod662 |
So you basically dont believe in science Pwnzer? If you can't see it for your self it ain't real? (Message edited by tod662 on December 02, 2015) | ||
| Hootowl |
"3. If there is missing heat, the idea of deep ocean currents and deep subligation if inconceivable. ( have the warmest years on record not been since 2000???)" Two part question, two part answer. 1. Correct. Because the currents that move heat from the surface to the deep oceans, and back take at least a century to do so. We wouldn't see its effect this soon. Also seems that those currents are currently bringing heat up, not down. 2. Though GW has stopped, 2016 will be the hottest year on record. It's preordained. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Of course I believe in science, but it is not my religion. Science is mostly THEORY. A bunch of guys decide on the most likely scenario, and then it's deemed fact. You can't tell me that ice core samples can accurately determine what temperature it was 200,000 years ago, or how much carbon was in the atmosphere.... it's all blah blah blah. Take carbon dating for example... been shown to be accurate in some cases, and wildly inaccurate in other cases. And NO scientist can explain God's miracles. Period. That's the one constant in all of this. | ||
| Hootowl |
"that means that drought conditions in the middle east can't be related to climate change" Nice straw man. And no, not in this case. What I said was, the middle east has been a desert for centuries. The intentional killing of crops and removal of topsoil by neighboring rulers in an attempt to drive out the locals (this only happened in what is now Israel, by the way) contributed to desertification (as it relates to sand), but a lack of topsoil and plants are not what defines a desert. Any area receiving less than 10 inches of rain per year is a desert. The middle east, for the most part, is a desert. This is caused by the rain shadow of the Himalayas, not from AGW, or even GW, but by plate tectonics. GW did not cause the middle east to dry up and is not driving people from those lands or causing Islamic terrorism. Islam is causing Islamic terrorism, and Islam, as a system of government, is driving people from those lands. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Why is clean energy and the jobs that go with it a bad thing" Please provide some success stories of this unicornian industry. I can provide many examples of tax payer funded 'green energy' failures. | ||
| Tod662 |
Hoot Um here is a synopsis of the whole industry. No wait instead please show me the plethora of failures that doesn't include Solyndra, and what do they cost us compared to the 37 Billion dollars oil companies receive in subsidies from us each year? The costs are falling and are now about par with fossil fuels. And so you are saying that humans caused the environmental changes of the middle east. And wait wait it only happened in Israel???? And here is a interesting twist on my above graph: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima te-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-t emperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-war ming/ Pwnzor: do you understand the definition of a scientific theory? from: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scienti fic-theory-definition-of-theory.html "scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." The process of becoming a scientific theory Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science. Theory basics The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently. The evolution of a scientific theory A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease. Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association. " |
