Global Warming

[lamb22]

Jeebus not Spencer again.

In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[44]

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]

 

[lamb22]

BTW check out who funded TCS Daily

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Jeebus not Spencer again.

In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[44]

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]

Poor. That's like saying "Rance can't be any good at footy, he's a *smile* Jehovah's Witness!".

 

[HR]

He is back polluting the minds of imbeciles
The Liberal Party rule change that means Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be knifed
He has copped it over his divisive handling of Australia’s unprecedented bushfire crisis. But there’s one key reason the PM’s not going anywhere

Murdoch not L2 that is......

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Poor. That's like saying "Rance can't be any good at footy, he's a ******* Jehovah's Witness!".

Really poor analogy. This is about critical thinking in both areas. It would be like expecting Rance to be a natural snowboarder after seeing him constantly stack his skateboard.

If Spencer's critical thinking faculties fail him when examining ID then they are suspect.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Really poor analogy. This is about critical thinking in both areas. It would be like expecting Rance to be a natural snowboarder after seeing him constantly stack his skateboard.

If Spencer's critical thinking faculties fail him when examining ID then they are suspect.

Well you'd better inform NASA that he doesn't know his *smile*.

https://aqua.nasa.gov/content/roy-spencer-us-amsr-e-science-team-leader

 

[lamb22]

There are two scenarios with Spencer. He either knows his stuff but happy to take fossil fuel money in exchange for his soul or he is a typical RWNJ. Either way he is a laughable and totally unreliable source.

If you want an analogy. A scientist who doesn't believe in evolution is like a heart doctor who prefers prayers and fish slapping to stents and/or surgery for blocked arteries.

If you want to bring Rance into it, then it's like a footballer who doesn't believe in kicking or handballing the ball and prefers to move the ball through invisible forces and 'intelligent design' (like Shedda does )

 

[TigerMasochist]

"Modern chicken littles" you say? Here's a report from 1912:

View attachment 9439

*smile* hell, I knew I was bad at math n I haven't had a real lot of practice at it lately. But burning 2 billion ton of solid lump creates 7 billion ton of gas?? Where the *smile* is Pauline when I need her?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

There are two scenarios with Spencer. He either knows his stuff but happy to take fossil fuel money in exchange for his soul or he is a typical RWNJ. Either way he is a laughable and totally unreliable source.

If you want an analogy. A scientist who doesn't believe in evolution is like a heart doctor who prefers prayers and fish slapping to stents and/or surgery for blocked arteries.

If you want to bring Rance into it, then it's like a footballer who doesn't believe in kicking or handballing the ball and prefers to move the ball through invisible forces and 'intelligent design' (like Shedda does )

Plenty of scientists are creationists (especialist biologists). It doesn't inform his climate work. What you've done is no better than someone saying "What would you know, you barrack for Richmond". Take his work or opinions to task, if you can.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The greens have had plenty to say about the bushfires. Richard Di Natale attended and addressed the climate change protest in Melbourne on Friday evening.

Typically him n his mates weren't actually doing anything about it except *smile* up traffic in the city ( causing more commuter pollution ) n dragging police resources away from assisting with important *smile*.

 

[TigerMasochist]

2. Therefore a paradigm shift in modes to manage fuel build up is required
3. heaps of new regulatory and planning frameworks need to be put in place to minimise the risk to humans and infrastructure required at all levels of government

No argument whatsoever from me on these two points eZy, but I reckon the cockaroaches might take over before your crows get a look in.
By that time I probably won't care much anyway as I'll already be cockaroach food n doing my little bit towards recycling n composting ( see, I'm a closet greenie after all doing my belated bit to save the world ).

 

[KnightersRevenge]

******* hell, I knew I was bad at math n I haven't had a real lot of practice at it lately. But burning 2 billion ton of solid lump creates 7 billion ton of gas?? Where the **** is Pauline when I need her?

Can't speak to your maths TM but your chemistry needs work.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yes, lower troposhere being the lowest level of earth's atmosphere and the air we breathe...

I've been citing it for years, not that you johnny-come-latelys would realise it. Spencer's work is respected even in warmist circles and his pioneering use of satellites to gather data garnered many scientific awards. Satellites provide full and consistent global coverage that is unachievable via terrestrial stations. (That the readings are tamper-proof is an added asset.)

The Spencer/UAH data shows more warming (0.18 degrees/decade v 0.17) than the "gold standard" HadCRUT4 surface temperature data since 2003.

Keep scoffing, activist boy.

But, it is a reconstruction, it is not a temperature reading - it seems you like reconstructions when they suit.

Johnny come lately, I've been debating those who ignore the science for decades, Spencer has been a laugh for decades.

Is 2003 your cherry picked base year now 1998 no longer works?

I notice your avoidance of the salient point, UAH is a fave of deniers, then again Spencer and Curry created it - gee I wonder if we should trust an outlier in terms of temperature changes which the deniers built for their own purposes?

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

But, it is a reconstruction, it is not a temperature reading - it seems you like reconstructions when they suit.

Johnny come lately, I've been debating those who ignore the science for decades, Spencer has been a laugh for decades.

Is 2003 your cherry picked base year now 1998 no longer works?

I notice your avoidance of the salient point, UAH is a fave of deniers, then again Spencer and Curry created it - gee I wonder if we should trust an outlier in terms of temperature changes which the deniers built for their own purposes?

DS

For decades, eh? Then start sounding like you know what you're talking about FFS. Your diatribe is straight out of the activist manual.

What do you say to the point that the UAH dataset practically matches HadCRUT4 since 2003?

As for being an outlier, Spencer maintains that RSS, NOAA and UW contain uncorrected errors in their datasets which the overseers of that data refuse to correct for.

"From late 1998 through 2004, there were two satellites operating: NOAA-14 with the last of the old MSU series of instruments on it, and NOAA-15 with the first new AMSU instrument on it. In the latter half of this overlap period there was considerable disagreement that developed between the two satellites. Since the older MSU was known to have a substantial measurement dependence on the physical temperature of the instrument (a problem fixed on the AMSU), and the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. (Engineer James Shiue at NASA/Goddard once described the new AMSU as the “Cadillac” of well-calibrated microwave temperature sounders).

Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. Since NOAA-14 was warming significantly relative to NOAA-15, this puts a stronger warming trend into their satellite datasets, raising the temperature of all subsequent satellites’ measurements after about 2000."

Yes, I know very well how you lot loathe Judith Curry for crossing the floor. But she has no association with the UAH satellite program.

 

[Baloo]

He is back polluting the minds of imbeciles
The Liberal Party rule change that means Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be knifed
He has copped it over his divisive handling of Australia’s unprecedented bushfire crisis. But there’s one key reason the PM’s not going anywhere

Murdoch not L2 that is......

Murdoch and News Corp don't like Morrison. Dutton was their man and they're annoyed he didn't get in.

It's also the reason I want Morrison to stay PM until hir term ends, the current batch of would be challengers are significantly more hard right than #Smoko.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

"The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing more than a propaganda tool to the public.

Climate models are useful tools for academic studies, however the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting. These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process... so I know the workings of these models very well.

Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

Other gross model simplifications include:

• Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics
• A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds
• Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks
• Inability to deal with water vapor elements
• Arbitrary 'tunings' (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood"

Confessions of a climate scientist: The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Nobody has ever said there aren't dissenting voices. Only that science isn't politics so dissenting in editorials isn't how you move the needle (unless you are more interested in your own notoriety than in the science - there is no reason for Curry, for instance, to court Watts et al. if she is trying to help improve climate models ). You run your models and make your assumptions and data available for scrutiny by your peers. If your science is robust it will be cited and will displace other models.

 

[Djevv]

Hey KR I found this article from a reputable source that has all human CO2 emissions at 32.3 Gt/yr(including agricultural - your ruminants). Natural emissions are at 770Gt/yr. This makes human emissions at almost exactly 4%.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com.au

According to the article nature absorbs 782Gt/yr hence CO2 emissions are going up.

 

[Coburgtiger]

[

******* hell, I knew I was bad at math n I haven't had a real lot of practice at it lately. But burning 2 billion ton of solid lump creates 7 billion ton of gas?? Where the **** is Pauline when I need her?

If you're combusting pure Carbon:

Carbon has a relative atomic mass of 12, Oxygen has a mass of 16.

CO2 is one carbon and two oxygens, giving the molecule a mass of 44.

44/12 = 3.7 meaning that combusting 1 gram of Carbon yields 3.7 grams of CO2, meaning 2 billion tonnes of Carbon (plus 5.4 billion tonnes of Oxygen) would yield 7.4 billion tonnes of Carbon dioxide.

Its a little simplistic, given fuel is not pure Carbon, and doesn't completely become CO2, hence the rounding down I assume.

 

[123cups]

Because the actual science is difficult to comprehend, it’s necessary for the masses to put their trust in others to translate science for them.

This “information translation” process is muddied by political motivations.

In this thread, even when questioned there isn’t much debate on the actual science. You’re mostly just trying to determine the trustworthiness of your respective sources.

For some reason, despite prolonged exchanges, different people cling to different sources. Why?

Really, that’s the cross-discipline, billion dollar question.

How that happens is perhaps the most interesting and useful process anyone could understand.

As for climate change, it blows my mind how many “information translation” sources are intentionally, and I would presume maliciously, manipulating public opinion.

Clearly, climate change is a battle of political forces.

- preserve current framework
- change current framework

Climate change fits in the category of the latter, therefore sources denying climate change are more prone to manipulation and thus warrant greater suspicion.

Logically, while everyone should be critical of their sources, climate deniers in particular need to accept they’re at greater risk of political manipulation.

One thing we can all agree on is society’s reliance on the integrity of freedom of information has never been greater.