Climate Science Is Not Settled

[fskimospy]

Says the person whose side's crowning achievement over the last 50 years is the glorious failure of Kyoto, abandoned and ignored even by its greatest supporters. Here's to another few decades of losing huge in elections, fuck all "accomplishments" on reducing CO2, no carbon taxes, and more emissions every year. Maybe you can adopt this as your mascot:

lol, no it isn't.

I'm not sure if you get a kick out of exposing your own ignorance or if you're just so overcome by rage against the liberal city folk that you can't think straight. I guess it doesn't matter in the end does it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Harde is an individual who has repeatedly created papers on CO2 sensitivity that use incredibly poor atmospheric models and then publishes conclusions that show much lower sensitivity. He does so in open access journals which appear to only publish denier based literature, presumably because nowhere else will accept them.

I will admit that he may just be utterly incompetent and is therefore unaware of the deficiencies of his work, but barring that and in viewing how this has happened repeatedly the only reasonable conclusion is that he is attempting to deny the established research on CO2 sensitivity.

I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that he is simply stupid, so I feel like that's meeting you partway. Fair enough?

I believe this is as close as I've ever seen you get to admitting you're wrong.

Anyway, it seems that there's been a fair amount of research lately indicating that the "established research" has overestimated CO2 sensitivity. As if all the model forecasts being horribly wrong is not enough...how much more evidence do you need in order to conclude that climate science is far from settled?

 

[fskimospy]

I believe this is as close as I've ever seen you get to admitting you're wrong.

Anyway, it seems that there's been a fair amount of research lately indicating that the "established research" has overestimated CO2 sensitivity. As if all the model forecasts being horribly wrong is not enough...how much more evidence do you need to conclude that climate science is far from settled?

Pssh, nice try. When I'm wrong I admit it.

In case you didn't notice here, I was mocking this guy. I don't for a second believe he doesn't realize what he's doing, but there is a remote possibility that he is simply that incompetent.

Also, your continued insistence that all the model forecasts are wrong is either a sign that you are continuing your dishonest representation of climate science or that you honestly don't know. It's particularly funny that you posted such a claim shortly after a post that referenced peer-reviewed research on model accuracy and came to the opposite conclusion.

Like I said, I get why you're defending this guy, as he basically replicates your shtick on this matter.

 

[fskimospy]

DSF, I would say after all the time that Paratus has spent educating you on the state of climate science there's no way you can claim ignorance anymore. I can't really think of a reason you persist in this pervasive dishonesty other than pride or widespead self delusion.

 

[Grooveriding]

There is hard science on global warming. It's proven and a scientific fact. Choosing to put your fingers in your ears and believe propaganda spread by corporate interests and politicians is no different than believing the world is flat and those shiny dots in the skies are light brite pegs.

Scary that in this modern age there are those still so easily brainwashed into believing complete hogwash. More so on a forum that is largely tech/science based.

It's scientific fact. It's not even worth debating with those who genuinely believe global warming is not happening, where most spreading that garbage know it's false but have a financial interest in the reality being obscured. It would be like debating with the guy on the street corner downtown wearing a tinfoil hat explaining that he is communicating with fruit flies.

 

[Paratus]

I believe this is as close as I've ever seen you get to admitting you're wrong.

Anyway, it seems that there's been a fair amount of research lately indicating that the "established research" has overestimated CO2 sensitivity. As if all the model forecasts being horribly wrong is not enough...how much more evidence do you need in order to conclude that climate science is far from settled?

DSF, I would say after all the time that Paratus has spent educating you on the state of climate science there's no way you can claim ignorance anymore. I can't really think of a reason you persist in this pervasive dishonesty other than pride or widespead self delusion.

Hold it. I think I found the problem

originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This post is blank because you have Peer Reviewed Science on ignore.

Doc you may want to consider fixing that.

 

[dphantom]

originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This post is blank because you have Peer Reviewed Science on ignore.

Doc you may want to consider fixing that.

Only approved peer reviewed though. Cannot accept peer reviewed that is not IAW AGW just so we all are clear on your position.

 

[glenn1]

Well I'd say the Montreal Protocol did a lot of good. It's helping heal the ozone hole and removed a shit ton of greenhouse causing chlorofluorocarbons.

Sorry that pisses you off.

Yeah, by substituting other refrigerants like HCFCs and PFCs which are multiple orders of magnitude more powerful as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Congratulations I guess? Maybe you'll have everyone using flammable/explosive refigerants like HFC32 or propane next, or go full retard all the way to using only brine.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Science is underfunded, so don't expect them to find an answer before a possible it's too late scenario.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Also, your continued insistence that all the model forecasts are wrong is either a sign that you are continuing your dishonest representation of climate science or that you honestly don't know. It's particularly funny that you posted such a claim shortly after a post that referenced peer-reviewed research on model accuracy and came to the opposite conclusion.

The models are plainly inaccurate. You must be talking about Risbey etal who cherry-picked 4 of 18 models and massaged them against ENSO data to chose the best ones at explaining the current temperature lull. Based on this study are we now expected to conclude this makes all the models somehow magically right? Really? I don't know about you, but I think I'll wait for others to look into this before latching onto this particular study as if it's the Holy Grail of the "science is settled" crowd.

Like I said, I get why you're defending this guy, as he basically replicates your shtick on this matter.

I don't think you get it, I'm not defending this guy. I'm calling you out on your dishonesty in calling him a "climate change denier". He clearly isn't.

 

[fskimospy]

The models are plainly inaccurate. You must be talking about Risbey etal who cherry-picked 4 of 18 models and massaged them against ENSO data to chose the best ones at explaining the current temperature lull. Based on this study are we now expected to conclude this makes all the models somehow magically right? Really? I don't know about you, but I think I'll wait for others to look into this before latching onto this particular study as if it's the Holy Grail of the "science is settled" crowd.

You say the models are inaccurate. When confronted with actual research into the accuracy of the models that tells you things you don't like to hear you search for ways to dismiss it. Shocker.

Articles published in Nature? "Bah, cherry picking nonsense!" Clearly flawed articles self-published in an open access journal? "This requires serious attention."

I don't think you get it, I'm not defending this guy. I'm calling you out on your dishonesty in calling him a "climate change denier". He clearly isn't.

You don't understand: he's a denier in the same way that you are. You don't like to think of yourself as one, so you don't think he can be one either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Only approved peer reviewed though. Cannot accept peer reviewed that is not IAW AGW just so we all are clear on your position.

There's several peer-reviewed papers in recent years suggesting lower CO2 climate sensitivity than previously thought. Hell, the reason the IPCC lowered their predicted range in AR5 was because they no longer could ignore the mounting evidence and rising voices within the community. And that was before the release of Lewis and Curry's paper which was peer-reviewed and published by one of the most elite climate journals. But hey...I hear the science is settled and anyone who even remotely challenges this belief is a 'climate change denier' regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Is reasonable discussion possible with people who don't have the capacity to think beyond such fundamentally dishonest memes? I think not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't understand: he's a denier in the same way that you are. You don't like to think of yourself as one, so you don't think he can be one either.

Tell me please...exactly what am I denying?

 

[fskimospy]

Tell me please...exactly what am I denying?

We've been through this. Why do you insist on repeating the same things over and over?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We've been through this. Why do you insist on repeating the same things over and over?

And you persist in providing nothing but bullshit like the above to support your dishonest claim. Have you no shame?

 

[fskimospy]

And you persist in providing nothing but bullshit like the above to support your dishonest claim. Have you no shame?

You're projecting again, haha. I am consistently surprised at how shamelessly dishonest you are about climate science.

 

[xBiffx]

There is hard science on global warming. It's proven and a scientific fact. Choosing to put your fingers in your ears and believe propaganda spread by corporate interests and politicians is no different than believing the world is flat and those shiny dots in the skies are light brite pegs.

Scary that in this modern age there are those still so easily brainwashed into believing complete hogwash. More so on a forum that is largely tech/science based.

It's scientific fact. It's not even worth debating with those who genuinely believe global warming is not happening, where most spreading that garbage know it's false but have a financial interest in the reality being obscured. It would be like debating with the guy on the street corner downtown wearing a tinfoil hat explaining that he is communicating with fruit flies.

Thanks, Sideshow Bob.

 

[Jaskalas]

Scientists' work to better improve our understanding of Climate Sensitivity should be an open, and interesting subject. I myself know far too little of the nitty gritty details to delve into how right or wrong any particular scientist is.

I will say that further attempts to quantify the exact effects of CO2, are beside the greater point of our emperical observations. I will continue to stand by my earlier position, modified for OHC.

If the temperature rises, we've got a problem.
If the temperature lowers, they have a problem.

If the temperature pauses, but OHC rises, we've got a problem.
If the temperature pauses, and OHC pauses or lowers, they have a problem.

There is no absolute certainty that natural factors did not coincide with our CO2 emissions. However, there needs to be a reasonable approach to this. A best guess, based on science. Currently we notice multi-decadal trends in our oceans and atmospheric temperatures. Their share of responsibility for observations are important.

Yet the more heat that we observe, the greater the weight sides with AGW. The pause can only do so much. At some point atmospheric temperature and/or OHC need to drop, or the argument against their theory becomes quite thin.

I'm arguing for time, til 2020, for observations to pan our way, but if they do not then I would yield and accept a greater portion of their wisdom.

 

[xBiffx]

Can't wait until this ebola stuff takes over and we can change this from a counterfactual based argument to one based in reality.

 

[bshole]

Can't wait until ebola takes over and we can change this from a counterfactual based argument to one based in reality.

Well according to Eski, the "science" is telling her that Ebola is no threat. ROFLMAFAO!!! She will fiddle while Rome burns.....

 

[chucky2]

Returned to thread hoping for something good, still see Nick Nicking... :'(

 

[xBiffx]

Returned to thread hoping for something good, still see Nick Nicking... :'(

But we have pics! :awe:

 

[chucky2]

But we have pics! :awe:

Ironic that the pic is more efficient than the massively polluting air traffic we have now... EDIT: Although, lifecyle per person, modern air travel might be more efficient. Then again, still needless luxury in the face of Gaia dying. Why do Believers hate Gaia so much? :'(

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But we have pics! :awe:

The B&W Hindenburg crash pic was good fun so I'm going to double down...here's the colorized version.

 

[dphantom]

So if the Climate is paused and insensitive to CO2 some one may want to inform Mother Nature

as usual you fail to understand basic science.

Climate does not pause, it is in a constant state of change.

Climate is sensitive to CO2 also.

But you know that. You are just being...facetious?? /sarcasm

If I remember correctly, an El Nino event releases heat into the atmosphere, sometimes very large amounts that will tend to raise temperatures. Oh wait, you know that too don't you.