TH3 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Longer than that...Royal Navy logs contain weather data from about 1650. There's a project on line to transcribe the climate data in ships' logs into digital format for climatology use (I participate in it). But it's hardly "microscopic." There's an unavoidable bias in them based on they only contain data from where the ships actually are. That's a much bigger bias than it would seem at first (imagine trying to collect historical hurricane data from sources that actively try to avoid hurricanes.) You're an "engineer." Figure it out. The above is a BIG hint. Thought I was an "idiot" a " turd" and also a "s/;;(ty" engineer. I get what you guys are saying..... I just don't agree with it.
....lybob Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Longer than that...Royal Navy logs contain weather data from about 1650. There's a project on line to transcribe the climate data in ships' logs into digital format for climatology use (I participate in it). Yeah I know but 1850s is when some augmentative ahole couldn't reasonable bring up the issue of accuracy of the measuring instruments
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Thought I was an "idiot" a " turd" and also a "s/;;(ty" engineer. I get what you guys are saying..... I just don't agree with it. Read the original article for this thread. I'm not saying anything, or making any claim. I'm looking at what is being said. What's being said: "bottom of ocean" and "pollution prevents effects of: pollution" and calling that patently retarded. Thus there is nothing to disagree, with me, on. Either you agree with these 2 ridiculous speculations, which represent the last defense of the entire AGW theory(again, amazing, isn't it?), or you don't. If you do? Then explain your support, and count on me ridiculing you as much as I possibly can. If you don't? Then there's nothing to do but join me in laughing at them. In all cases, we are FAR past the time for NEW MODELS. Instead of creating workaround after workaround(you know what that means, right?), it's time to throw out the design, and start over. Consider: The current design has exactly 0 chance of meeting the spec. If we can't get a decent model together, then we CANNOT make global and national policy decisions on it. If that's the case? Then this whole thing dies...right here, right now. Environtologists know ALL of the above is true. Hence? they keep defending the bad design. Christ, if you really are an engineer: don't tell me you've never seen this behavior before. Edited January 14, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 What's the over/under on how many words OC can write before mentioning himself in a post? 10?
....lybob Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 What's the over/under on how many words OC can write before mentioning himself in a post? 10? beauty is in the I of the beholder
John Adams Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 What's the over/under on how many words OC can write before mentioning himself in a post? 10? If he talked about himself in the 3rd person, at least that would be funny for a while. But he'd drain all humor from it since he has no ability to empathize. See for example, the poetry argument thread. What a train wreck of illness that was/is.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 What's the over/under on how many words OC can write before mentioning himself in a post? 10? It doesn't matter Tom, because? Whether I write 1 word or a 1000 you have to read them all, don't you? beauty is in the I of the beholder If he talked about himself in the 3rd person, at least that would be funny for a while. But he'd drain all humor from it since he has no ability to empathize. See for example, the poetry argument thread. What a train wreck of illness that was/is. Oh look, the two posters who are the most all-time butthurt due to the beatings I've put on them. Hilarious.
Wacka Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 baskin sounds like the creationists. You provide concrete evidence they are wrong and they totally ignore it.
B-Man Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Dems to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering 'Climate Change'... They aren't even pretending that we have freedoms any more.
John Adams Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Oh look, the two posters who are the most all-time butthurt due to the beatings I've put on them. Hilarious. Stick to something your good at like spending a thousand pages discussing Nate Silver's shortcomings. I'll save everyone the time of reading your long-winded response to that stomping, ever available to anyone who wants to smack you around. Maybe it's not kind to lay an easy beatdown on the joke poster of the board but sometimes you need it. "You don't even understand what I was posting about Nate Silver because only I can understand it. And maybe Tom (who I fantasize about paying me some respect some day). I was right about Nate Silver all along. His forecast just turned out right for the wrong reasons, and only I understand them. If you'd read my 398 posts on the topic, you too, might understand why I'm so great. Me me me me." Edited January 15, 2014 by John Adams
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Dems to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering 'Climate Change'... They aren't even pretending that we have freedoms any more. We have lots of freedoms. What freedoms don't we have? You are quit the extremists
TH3 Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Read the original article for this thread. I'm not saying anything, or making any claim. I'm looking at what is being said. What's being said: "bottom of ocean" and "pollution prevents effects of: pollution" and calling that patently retarded. Thus there is nothing to disagree, with me, on. Either you agree with these 2 ridiculous speculations, which represent the last defense of the entire AGW theory(again, amazing, isn't it?), or you don't. If you do? Then explain your support, and count on me ridiculing you as much as I possibly can. If you don't? Then there's nothing to do but join me in laughing at them. In all cases, we are FAR past the time for NEW MODELS. Instead of creating workaround after workaround(you know what that means, right?), it's time to throw out the design, and start over. Consider: The current design has exactly 0 chance of meeting the spec. If we can't get a decent model together, then we CANNOT make global and national policy decisions on it. If that's the case? Then this whole thing dies...right here, right now. Environtologists know ALL of the above is true. Hence? they keep defending the bad design. Christ, if you really are an engineer: don't tell me you've never seen this behavior before. Not a creationist...OC what you are saying is the data and positions in the article have no merit as they are fabricated by the authors to perpetuate a mass global conspiracy of academics and politicians to amass power and money. This conspiracy is amazing - taking advantage of a correlation of a man made rise in CO2 levels with a spike in global land and sea temps. All behavior is self serving...and there probably is an element of it in GW science....as there is in negating the science behind GW as done by the Fossil Fuel Industry (no!....smoking does not cause cancer circa 1960's). That being said - I looked at the article and others...there has been a deceleration in air temps rise in the last 15 years - although 2013 was the hottest on record. While the rise in air temps have shown a decel, ocean temps continue rise at a static rate and the hold much more energy that air - so in terms of total global energy storage - that continues to rise. As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - I don't see anything falling apart. I think it is quite micro - "the pause" - to make a claim that the whole of science behind GW is "falling apart" - and as long as total global "heat" continues to rise at a predictable and historically fast rate...what exactly is falling apart? What is easily proven is the total energy storage on the planet continues to rise but precipitants of this are not easily or totally predictable. Makes sense to me. Edited January 15, 2014 by baskin
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Not a creationist...OC what you are saying is the data and positions in the article have no merit as they are fabricated by the authors to perpetuate a mass global conspiracy of academics and politicians to amass power and money. This conspiracy is amazing - taking advantage of a correlation of a man made rise in CO2 levels with a spike in global land and sea temps. All behavior is self serving...and there probably is an element of it in GW science....as there is in negating the science behind GW as done by the Fossil Fuel Industry (no smoking does not cause cancer) and the knuckleheads at Fox. That being said - I looked at the article and others...there has been a deceleration in air temps - although 2013 was the hottest on record. While the air temps have shown a decel, ocean temps continue rise at a static rate and the hold much more energy that air - so in terms of total global energy storage - continues to rise. As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - I don't see anything falling apart. Your view seems quite micro - "the pause" - to make a claim that the whole of science behind GW is "falling apart" - What is easily proven is the total energy storage on the planet continues to rise and the precipitants of this are not easily or totally predictable. Makes sense to me. Oh, give me a break. The argument isn't about global warming, it's about anthropogenic global warming. Which means it's not enough to just measure rising temperatures, you have to demonstrate conclusively that it's directly tied to man-made activities. Which I presume is what you mean by "anecdotal incidences"...which is beyond stupid. You're arguing that proven science is based on anecdote? You're a ****head. What kind of engineer are you again? Sanitation?
TH3 Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Oh, give me a break. The argument isn't about global warming, it's about anthropogenic global warming. Which means it's not enough to just measure rising temperatures, you have to demonstrate conclusively that it's directly tied to man-made activities. Which I presume is what you mean by "anecdotal incidences"...which is beyond stupid. You're arguing that proven science is based on anecdote? You're a ****head. What kind of engineer are you again? Sanitation? WTF are YOU talking about?...You guys are truly pathetic....CO2 levels go from 230 to 400 PPM which can be DIRECTLY traced to man made use of FF....global temps go up 2 degrees F parallel to the CO2 rise...I am not making the case for anectdotal evidence which kills me because this thread is full of pictures showing the arctic ice cap frozen.....PROOF! GW not happening anymore!! Ice Breaker frozen!! Its cold outside!!! Its ALL FALLING APART!!! EFF you
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 WTF are YOU talking about?...You guys are truly pathetic....CO2 levels go from 230 to 400 PPM which can be DIRECTLY traced to man made use of FF....global temps go up 2 degrees F parallel to the CO2 rise...I am not making the case for anectdotal evidence which kills me because this thread is full of pictures showing the arctic ice cap frozen.....PROOF! GW not happening anymore!! Ice Breaker frozen!! Its cold outside!!! Its ALL FALLING APART!!! EFF you But CO2 levels are not directly traced to temperature increases, because that's only a CORRELATION. That means anthropogenic global warming can be nothing more than a hypothesis by definition. Until and unless a mechanism is described that accurately predicts future warming (which, given the temperature data of the past 15 years, it doesn't), it's not even a theory. Furthermore, the very fact that it is literally impossible to disprove global warming only because of the breathtaking narrowness and parochialism of the research community will not permit a negative test, making it an unfalsifiable hypothesis, hence NOT EVEN SCIENCE. And you, stupid shitbird that you are, think that's it's scientific fact because "As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - [you] don't see anything falling apart." Not only making the case for anecdotal evidence...but doing so in a manner that demonstrates you know precisely jack **** about the scientific method and are completely incapable of discussing it. And that would be the difference between you and me: I understand the science, and want it done correctly. You, on the other hand, are a complete tool who may as well be reading comic books, for all you know on the subject.
B-Man Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I’M A CLIMATE CHAMPION by Tim Blair, The latest Greens email to their tragic supporters: Yet Sophie is somehow still alive despite all those years of superheated horror. Her email launches the Greens’ fantastic new climate champion campaign: The Abbott Government wants to demolish our clean energy laws – legislation we know is working to halt global warming. This is a lie. Australian legislation cannot change the planet’s temperature. Currently, the Greens are standing in the way of Abbott ramming his roll-back through the Senate. Sophie! Language! Becoming a climate champion means you’ll be the first to know about campaign actions and opportunities in the coming months. We’ll send you a Climate Champion toolkit with everything you need to build awareness and support in your community. A climate champion toolkit … how absolutely darling. I’ve already applied for mine, and strongly encourage all of my fellow climate champions to join in. We want our climate champion toolkits now. Edited January 16, 2014 by B-Man
Wacka Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Baskin, you can't even read. I was the one who said you ACT like a creationist.
B-Man Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Money..........................Money......................................Money UN climate chief: Global financial institutions really need to start tripling their renewable-energy investment, stat Because United Nations bureaucrats seem uniquely incapable of looking for solutions beyond collectivization, redistribution, and mutual impoverishment. Via the Guardian: The United Nations climate chief has urged global financial institutions to triple their investments in clean energy to reach the $1 trillion a year mark that would help avert a climate catastrophe. In an interview with the Guardian, the UN’s Christiana Figueres urged institutions to begin building the foundations of a clean energy economy by scaling up their investments. Global investment in clean technologies is running at about $300bn a year – but that is nowhere where it needs to be, Figueres said. “From where we are to where we need to be, we need to triple, and we need to do that – over the next five to 10 years would be best – but certainly by 2030,” she said. … But investment has lagged far behind. “What we need to have invested in the energy sector and in the green infrastructure in order to make the transformation that we need in order to stay within 2C is one trillion dollars a year and we are way, way behind that,” Figueres said. Actually, forget triple — Bloomberg released the data for 2013 renewables investment figures today, and the net value fell for a second year in a row. That means that, to reach that much-vaunted $1 trillion total, investment would now have to quadruple: UN climate chief declares communism best for fighting global warming Anyone familiar with the disastrous environmental impact of the communist grip on eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union knows what happens when unaccountable totalitarians hold power. If nothing else, the Chernobyl disaster should give one a clue, a legacy Ukrainians will have to endure for decades more, if not centuries. Apparently, though, one does not become the United Nation’s climate chief by collecting such clues. This week, Christiana Figueres offered a prescription for solving global warming — communism! United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres. “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” Many more examples at the link: Bejing
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres. What?
B-Man Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 [/indent] What? I think Figueres’s admiration for China is not their results, but the form of rule that the UN lusts to have for itself, which this sentence from the Bloomberg story makes explicit: China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said. QED. It’s not about the environment.
Recommended Posts