[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yes, the warming that started ~20,000 years ago is a good thing. Unless you prefer for most of Canada to be buried in ice.

Good to know.

I like that Bart is able to believe in a fact, but then ignore the data behind that fact. The data that shows Hansen was right.

0:

Climate record all.png [ 61.09 KiB | Viewed 76 times ]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=climate+record

[BartSimpson]

Arguing the 'Hockey Stick' as a fact is akin to arguing that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Arguing the 'Hockey Stick' as a fact is akin to arguing that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet.

It's not an argument. It's data. Measurements. Facts, reinforced by other independent measurements that show the exact same trends. The same measurements that show a 20,000 year warming trend since the last ice age also show a huge increase in temperature over the last 100 years.

Opinions are not involved. Where they do come in, is that you can feel comfort in one, and ignore the other. That is the very definition of 'cognitive bias'.

[BartSimpson]

It's grossly manipulated and even falsified data.

Remember the University of East Anglia & Met Office emails that exposed the true thoughts of the AGW alarmists?

'We're choosing periods to show warming'

'Science is being manipulated - it might not be too clever in the long run'

'Climate change is a "better label" than global warming'

'Many thanks for your paper - and congratulations for reviving global warming'

It's these statements from the very people who were asserting the Hockey Stick that have permanently debunked it for me.

My question is why do you continue to so fervently believe in something that the very researchers behind it are clearly calling bullshit?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's grossly manipulated and even falsified data.

It is not. The very fact that there are many different sources from very different countries operating independent of one another, yet still coming up with similar results shows the data is not manipulated or falsified.

There are ways to tell if it had been.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Remember the University of East Anglia & Met Office emails that exposed the true thoughts of the AGW alarmists?

'We're choosing periods to show warming'

'Science is being manipulated - it might not be too clever in the long run'

'Climate change is a "better label" than global warming'

'Many thanks for your paper - and congratulations for reviving global warming'

It's these statements from the very people who were asserting the Hockey Stick that have permanently debunked it for me.

Do you remember the five or so investigations into those emails that all showed these taken out of context? I do. That you keep going on about them year after year shows what a successful PsyOps campaign the deniers have accomplished.

Lets assume the UEA did lie and manipulated climate data. What about Japan? What about the missions in Greenland and Antarctica drilling ice cores? What about NASA satellites? They all say the same thing. So why does UEA matter?

Hint: It doesn't. By itself, it's just one data point. But all of these data points saying the same thing - that matters.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My question is why do you continue to so fervently believe in something that the very researchers behind it are clearly calling bullshit?

Because data doesn't lie. Statistics don't lie. Even if a few researchers did lie, there aren't enough of them lying to create the illusion of fact that we see. That's Science. Its very procedures are error correcting.

Why do you pretend that the science even matters to you, when you've stated that there is no science out there that can change your mind?

[DrCaleb]

And to add: Berkeley Earth project. The guy who started it was a skeptic. He didn't believe in AGW, so he set out to prove it wrong.

He couldn't. In Science, that is the Holy Grail. You set out to prove the negative, and if you can't, the theory is sound.

[llama66]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Arguing the 'Hockey Stick' as a fact is akin to arguing that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet.

L. Ron was a prophet. You just wait... Xenu will strike you down for such blasphemy.

But seriously there is some serious empirical evidence that the earth is heating up. Glaciers retreating at record rates, Summers are hotter at farther northern latitudes, drought, drier conditions, changing weather patterns, etc.

Is this the work of man? maybe. maybe not entirely. However I'm sure we're not helping the situation by pumping tons of shit into the atmosphere.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

However I'm sure we're not helping the situation by pumping tons of shit into the atmosphere.

That is the simple part of the equation that the deniers always dance around. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Water vapour all are increasing in atmospheric concentrations. These gasses retain infrared heat.

They can't simply explain how; if the concentration of gasses are increasing, how the Earth's average temperature doesn't increase as well.

[llama66]

Its simple chemistry. The more chemicals you add to a solution, the more its properties change.

[DrCaleb]

Atmosphere isn't a solution though. The properties aren't the same as if it were in solution.

I would also add, in that same light and with the long weekend upon us, that Alcohol is a solution.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Atmosphere isn't a solution though. The properties aren't the same as if it were in solution.

I would also add, in that same light and with the long weekend upon us, that Alcohol is a solution.

The Atmosphere is a gaseous solution.

And yes, Alcohol is a solution.

[DrCaleb]

My chemistry is a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that chemicals in a gas don't react the same due to their higher energy state and distance between them. They do react, just not at the same rates.

[llama66]

Gaseous solutions
If the solvent is a gas, only gases are dissolved under a given set of conditions. An example of a gaseous solution is air (oxygen and other gases dissolved in nitrogen). Since interactions between molecules play almost no role, dilute gases form rather trivial solutions. In part of the literature, they are not even classified as solutions, but addressed as mixtures.

[BartSimpson]

llama66 llama66:

But seriously there is some serious empirical evidence that the earth is heating up.

I agree.

But if you look at the thoroughly documented retreat of ice in places like Glacier Bay then you see a steady state of retreat dating back to when Captain Cook visited the place and it predates industrialization.

So I look at the empirical evidence and I see a warming trend that predates human activity.

And then I look at the climate alarmists who want everyone to believe that the current warming trend of the global climate only started 150 years ago. The simple fact is that reliable documentation from trustworthy sources like the Royal Navy say otherwise.

Now again I will absolutely acknowledge that man made activity may be influencing a massive global climate trend. But we are absolutely not the central driver of that trend.

I'm also not alarmed by the retreat of glaciers because we're logically at the end of the last ice age and it makes sense that ice would be in retreat.

That said, I support reducing pollution for its own sake. I happen to like clean air and clean water and reducing the man-made shitpiles that abound on the planet is a good thing.

I'd like to take the billions that are being poured down the black hole of global warming science into immediately practical matters such as eliminating plastics in our oceans, cleaning up fishing nets that kill all sorts of wildlife, stopping the ignorant Third Worlders from using cyanide to catch fish and kill coral reefs, putting an end to the destructive use of charcoal for cooking and heating, cleaning up nuclear and chemical waste, and etc.

There are so many things we could be doing to immediately improve the environment and instead we're distracted with horseshit like 'carbon credits' that MIGHT slow down warming by as much as .1C over the next century.

Fuck that. There's actual work to do right now and we need to do that work. Now.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Atmosphere isn't a solution though. The properties aren't the same as if it were in solution.

I would also add, in that same light and with the long weekend upon us, that Alcohol is a solution.

Actually, air is a solution, by strict chemistry definition. Nitrogen would be the solvent and oxygen, CO2, etc the solutes.

Alcohol is not a solution, but beer, wine and liquor are.

Sorry, couldn't help being pedantic.