Another fun climate change thread

^ the guy is funded by fossil fuel companies.

 

He works for CATO chiefly which gets funded by both sides of the political spectrum. CATO also takes money from electric car companies

This particular video, even though it appears on fox, thus people assume its right wing propaganda. He is just really talking about the accuracy of computer modelling and temps in the ionosphere.

I could waffle on for another couple of paragraphs, but the short version is, we've had computer modelling for a good 35 years now, computers have gotten faster, but there hasnt been any breakthroughs in the algorithms behind them since the 70s

The short short version: if what he is saying isnt in part true, then why isnt everywhere 7C hotter than it actually is now?

 

Because what he's saying they said isn't true. I don't know if THAT'S true, but it's a potential reason.

I don't pretend to be intelligent or knowledgeable enough to understand most of this on a level that doesn't involve me trusting someone. I, like a hell of a lot of people, have to make a judgement at some point about who I am trusting. This is the graph he was using, right?
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Slide12.jpg

And the article I saw it on: How reliable are climate models?

I trust what they tell me about how the graph he is using is faulty. They could be twisting things and lying, but it doesn't make sense to me that they would. I don't have the time or desire to read all the studies I would need to to form an opinion from scratch.

 

Just look at the rebuttal itself with that pic you posted

"data improperly aligned to exaggerate the difference"- oh jeez, misaligned by what looks like a whopping 0.02 degrees
"we dont live on Mt Everest or in airplanes" whats that got to do with anything? when it comes to modelling the ionosphere
"doesnt include other groups' work estimating greater warming" - but they wont tell you what that work is just plant the thought maybe it exists

Ask yourself why the rebuttal itself is so childish


Hindcasting is useless as you need accurate historical data, you usually only have a single real world result of a previous time period to compare results too, and the usual problem of more detail means more multiplying margins of error

For example if your superannuation fund used hindcasting to predict how much of your super in 2019 it should invest in property worldwide based on datasets that include property prices during the 1980s from Detroit, Fukishima or Caracas......well you can see what problems may arise

 

CATO of course is anything but an impartial think tank. As far as cherry picking data and studies, none of the “flaws” with the widely accepted climate change models has any impact with the conclusion that human generated CO2 is warming the atmosphere and at an alarming rate. And, the cost of doing nothing is so horrible that all of the economic measures become meaningless. And, nobody can find a flaw with the basic physics and chemistry of CO2. As far as the argument about plants needing CO2, that’s like saying a person laying nude in the sun till burned to a cinder....at least they should have plenty of vitaminD.

 

Tending toward infinity approaching a limit, not tending toward infinity, otherwise you are saying the lengthof the US coastline is infinite. And you know you are just talking about Calculus right? And approximations for area under a curve....if it were a 2D problem

But its not.

And its a problem too complex to work out Means solving non linear differential equations, which is why they dont bother using satellite imagery. Youd be able to find papers, sites that claim to have worked it out, but at a rate of change of 0.1-0.5cm rise per year the margin of error is too high, and these are appriximations to math functions. Which is the real resson NOAA is still sticking with the 60 year old data.

If what I am saying isnt true one should easily be able to find on the net:

1. The length of any land masses tidal coastline, let alone the US

2. What the sea level was 60 years ago

3. How much the sea level is actually rising with a description on how they worked it out

 

I hear of islands disappearing, but I've never heard of coastal cities going under. I don't hear about that. Surely if an island can disappear then so are the coastlines right?

Sounds like a good idea would be to build salt water treatment plants. People will tell me about the cost of that but I don't care. The idea is genius.

 

There is about 1.4 billion tonnes of water on the planet.

There are close to an extra 4 billion humans on the planet compared to 50 years ago.

Humans are about 60% water, at an average weight of 80kgs, those extra 4 billion people represent 0.6x 80x4 billion/1000 kgs= 192,000,000 tonnes or 0.192 billion tonnes

Thats 1.4% if the worlds water supply 50 years ago now contained in those extra humans.

85 million extra humans a year, thats 0.3% of that total volume of earths water in a single year

And thats just the humans, there are less species nowadays, but the worlds total biomass has been increasing. That is, the total number of animal species has declined, but the total number of animals has increased.

I wont bother working out how much watee is contained in the 15 billion chickens there are nowadays, than there were 50 years ago.

All this when we are talking about sea level rises of 0.1-0.5 cm a year, with a margin of error of 10 times that value

So what am I getting at?

Who do so many blindly follow what the "experts" tell you when you have no idea what methods were used to work it out? Or if indeed they know how to, or are even able to.

Why this common assumption that government, public funded are some how going to be less biased than privately funded ones. Both sides are going to be guilty of never saying "I dont know how to" if they dont know how to.

Experts are so sure sea levels are rising by such and such amount.......but we cant work out how big the coastline, thus how big was the sea in the first place? Doesnt sound a little funky to you?

How many of those climate models do you think factor in the inceasing amount of the worlds biomass

Whats the real reason NOAA is using 60 yr old data, why arent the Maldives underwater already?

Only 2% of the worlds water was ever contained in the ice caps, 1.4% is now contained in the extra 4 billion humans than there were 50 years ago

 

I put a mistake in on purpose, to see if you or anyone else would catch it.

Still, if anyone does care, I challenge any one to find a study or report on a computer simulation on sea level rises that accounts for the water in all the worlds biomass

 

1.4 billion tons of water, those sound like rookie numbers to me. Did they even weight the ice bro?

 

Illegal ozone-depleting gases traced to rogue factories in China

 

Go and stand in the corner, China.

 

No bother changing anything because... China!

 

So what are you and everyone else in the EU going to do about it?.

Its not a seperate issue, China is producing the cheap crap for the rest of the world

What products have they been making with the CFCs and how many of those have been exported to the EU? Have you bought any?

And I bet first time you even heard about it was this thread

And look at the organizations that noticed, from Japan, Korea, Australia.....anyone in the EU even notice? With all the different publically funded climate organuzations you guys have

Whats the bet we come back in 5 yrs, nothing has been done about it

 

Of course China and mostother nations release about1/2 the aomount of carbon per capita thee US does. And the US has a President and body of politicians called Republican busy ignoring the vicious truth that they are selling out the future for their greed. Andrew about the resurgence in very large trucks and suv s.

We love our suv s, don’t you see? And when global warming comes to be, we’ll just turn up the old ac.

 

I read it on the BBC news website. It's not unnoticed or unreported.

I remember when I was a kid the idea something was made in China was kind of looked down on.. there was a negative connotation. Now it's just normal and yeah, no one seems to connect the dots. would mean taking responsibility.